## Re: [Cute] Clear Definition of Types

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 22:04:20 -0300 (CLST)

Paul Snively just linked from the discussion below to my other favourite
Lambda type discussion (which I've tried to find in the past and failed) -
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/classic/message6587.html#6615

Andrew

andrew cooke said:
>
> The clearest definition of types I've seen is in this thread -
> http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/view/412  Unfortunately, I can't find
> a way to link to single comments, but look for the title "Only 20 years?
> ;)", author Anton van Straaten.
>
> It is the first time I, at least, have seen a reasonable argument for
> calling "dynamically typed" languages "untyped" (but then I haven't read
> Cardelli or, at least, I haven't understood/remembered what I've read).
>
> (And most of cdiggins's reply is also correct, as far as I can tell, and
> also consistent with the comment they are replying to: there is a
> connection (and they don't see it); it is not necessary;  terms *are*
> "values and expressions"; Cardelli's definition is incomplete; the
> reference to "lower bound" seems to be a a confusion between the extent of
> a set and a numeric value)
>
> Andrew
>
> --
>  __ _ __ ___  ___| |_____   work web site:
> http://www.ctio.noao.edu/~andrew
>  / _ / _/ _ \/ _ \ / / -_)  personal web site:
> http://www.acooke.org
>  \__,_\__\___/\___/_\_\___|  list:
> http://www.acooke.org/andrew/compute.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> compute mailing list
> compute@...
> https://200.30.199.101/mailman/listinfo/compute
>
>

--
__ _ __ ___  ___| |_____   work web site: http://www.ctio.noao.edu/~andrew
/ _ / _/ _ \/ _ \ / / -_)  personal web site: http://www.acooke.org
\__,_\__\___/\___/_\_\___|  list: http://www.acooke.org/andrew/compute.html