[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why would anyone want opacity?

To: gjr@martigny.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Why would anyone want opacity?
From: "ozan s. yigit" <oz@nexus.yorku.ca>
Date: Thu, 09 May 96 17:21:45 -0400
Cc: blume@cs.Princeton.EDU, rrrs-authors@martigny.ai.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 May 96 16:40:51 EDT." <199605092044.QAA24481@nexus.yorku.ca>

> Thus type checking _should be_ a property of tools, not languages,
> since languages make perfect sense in the absence of _any_ mechanized
> tools.

type checking /is/ a property of tools, but type information is a component
of languages. in some natural languages, type information (say, gender) is
inferred and in some, it is explicitly stated. so why should artifical
natural languages be any different?

oz

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why would anyone want opacity?
  - From: Guillermo J. Rozas <gjr@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: Why would anyone want opacity?
Next by Date: Re: A (Low-Level) Opaque Object Proposal for R5RS
Prev by thread: Why do some people insist on static type checking? (was Re: Why would anyone want opacity?)
Next by thread: Re: Why would anyone want opacity?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread