Re: Modelling Disjoint Subtypes
From: David Cressey <cressey73_at_verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:58:06 GMT
Message-ID: <2HNNh.4363$fA2.822_at_trndny02>
> I'd disagree too, because if Marshall is right, what would be the point
> of the type in the first place?
> > If I look at the variables x, a, and b at runtime, the type is gone.
...
> But I can't agree with that unless you mean the type is gone because you
> are looking at bits in memory, which is a kind of switching of gears.
> One can make anything disappear if one mentally switches gears often
enough.
>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:58:06 GMT
Message-ID: <2HNNh.4363$fA2.822_at_trndny02>
"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
news:vhFNh.73213$zU1.70545_at_pd7urf1no...
> David Cressey wrote:
> > "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > ///
> >>As an aside, there exists systems in which the storage cost
> >>*at runtime* for type information is zero, because the types
> >>exist only at compile time, and are completely removed
> >>after.
> >
> >
> > If you are saying what I think you are saying, then I disagree.
> > ...
>
> I'd disagree too, because if Marshall is right, what would be the point
> of the type in the first place?
>> >
> > For example, let's I have
> > float x, a, b;
> > x= a + b
> > If I look at the variables x, a, and b at runtime, the type is gone.
...
>
> But I can't agree with that unless you mean the type is gone because you
> are looking at bits in memory, which is a kind of switching of gears.
> One can make anything disappear if one mentally switches gears often
enough.
>
huh? I think you're making the same point I made in the part of my response
that you snipped.
Or am I misreading something?
> p
Received on Mon Mar 26 2007 - 12:58:06 CEST