Re: more closed-world chatter
Date: 5 May 2007 13:17:35 -0700
Message-ID: <1178396255.293864.297010_at_e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
On May 5, 12:40 pm, "David Cressey" <cresse..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
> "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > On May 5, 8:50 am, Jon Heggland <jon.heggl..._at_idi.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > > > when it comes to the advantage of sub-typing in dealing with
> > > > my question.
>
> > > I don't know about "advantage"; I just don't see how you can avoid it.
>
> > It's easy to avoid: just don't put subtying in the language design.
>
> > Much of the talk in language design in the last ten years or more
> > has focused on various mechanisms for subtyping, but it's an
> > entirely optional language feature. That's easy to forget when
> > it's all anyone's talking about, but it is possible to just leave it
> > out.
> > It's also possible to leave a static type system out entirely.
>
> You've lost me here. As Bob pointed out a few days ago,
> all types can be considered subtypes of the universal supertype.
> Doesn't that mean that all typing is, in reality, subtyping?
>
> If so, how can you implement typing without
> implicitly implementing subtyping?
Be sure to distinguish between a theoretic view of a formal system that is outside the system, and the system itself. We can analyze any type system with set theory, and speak of the universal set, but that doesn't mean the universal set is a concept within that system.
This language is statically typed, but has no subtyping whatsoever.
As always, it's a tradeoff. :-)
Marshall Received on Sat May 05 2007 - 22:17:35 CEST