Re: Strong Typing, Dynamic Languages, What to do?

[sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor])]

>>>>> "Mike" == Michael Vanier <mvanier@cs.caltech.edu> writes:

Mike> I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

Mike> As I understand it:

Mike> Strongly typed: each datum has a definite type, and this type can't be
Mike> ignored arbitrary (e.g. by treating a pointer as an integer).

That's the exact same way I took it.

Mike> {...]

Mike> By these definitions, scheme is strongly typed 

No, it isn't.  Read Section 1.3.2 of R5RS (especially the second
paragraph) and look for occurrences of "an error is signalled" in the
rest of the report.

Now, most *implementations* are strongly typed in this sense, but they
are perfectly free to behave differently and still be R5RS-compliant.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla