From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-12-01T08:16:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Optional static typing (or, What can Ruby 2.0 borrow from Boo?)

Hi --

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, gabriele renzi wrote:

> David A. Black ha scritto:
> 
> >>But In case we had optional typing I'd prefer to see types as full 
> >>predicates, instead of simple is_a? checks.
> > 
> > 
> > They would have to be, because is_a? doesn't tell you about the
> > object's type, just its class/module hierarchy.  
> > 
> > And then, when a typing system becomes complicated enough, with enough
> > granularity to even begin to hint at the possibilities embodied in
> > Ruby objects, it will start to converge on what was there all along
> > anyway -- dynamism, uncertainty, change -- and will be superfluous :-)
> > 
> 
> I guess the type theorist out there would not agree (i.e. I'm told is 
> easy to define Odd or Prime types in haskell). 

But I'm talking specifically about Ruby, not theorizing about type in
general.  


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net