Re: bytecode unification for scripting (and other!) languages

[Nicolas Neuss <nicolas.neuss@IWR.Uni-Heidelberg.De>]

"Shriram Krishnamurthi" <sk@cs.brown.edu> writes:

> ...
> I don't believe that scripting languages should not be typed.  I just
> don't think their programs should be typed *in totality*.  There needs
> to be a useful way of saying "this stuff I know is of this type (and
> tell me if I'm wrong) whereas for that stuff I have no idea of its
> type".  In particular, this requires a simple yet powerful way of
> typing the myriad of data streams -- whether from files or from
> network sockets -- that scripts must process.  (If you think about it,
> that type information is implicitly there in your program -- it's in
> the regexps that you write!)

You certainly know the type inference which CMUCL is using.  For me,
that looks very nice and right.  In which direction would your ideas
differ from that?

Yours, Nicolas.