[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Why would anyone want opacity?
> No, this is not the correct metaphor. Lexical and syntax analysis
> (which amount to spell-checking) are there even in Scheme. What Gerry
> objects to is a set of rules that let you decide statically (by just
> looking at the sentence), whether it makes sense or not. He prefers a
> system where we find out by `running' the sentence. He would find out
> that `At night it is cooler than outside.' doesn't make much sense
> only when his audience starts making funny faces.
I don't object to any such rules. You may have any such rules you
please, for your own code. I am pleased to admit features into the
language that allow us to express type ideas and to make tools to
check types. If you provide a convenient means of declaring and tools
for checking types that I may use on my own code I will probably use
it, because helpful tools are always welcome, and I have often desired
the ability to declare and check types.
However, what I object to is the ENFORCEMENT of your rules as part of
the language. I cannot and I will not use a language that REQUIRES me
to make any type system happy. If you wish to make such a language,
you are free to do so, but don't inflict it on me.