From: Chris Uzdavinis <chris@...>
Date: 2001-08-12T10:44:05+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:19564] Re: order and freedom in Ruby (was: Re: Re: the  way class variables work)

Paul Prescod <paulp@ActiveState.com> writes:

> There is no doubt that there are advantages to static type checking. But
> the message I responded to seemed to indicate that there are certain
> projects that are ONLY achievable with static type checking. I simply do
> not believe that is so.

That is absolutely not what I'm gettting at. 

I'm searching for ways to dynamically adjust CALLING CODE runtime
behavior to be capble of responding to and adapting to dynamic change
in the functions it is calling.

Along the way I've realized that certain types of dynamic change
(note, this is unrelated to static typing nor dynamic typing) is
impossible to code against, detect, or recover from.

Someone redefining Array class's operator[], for example, will break
tested and trusted code that hasn't been touched.  

(The problem is that the change occurred in a context totally removed
from the place where the symptoms are found.) 

-- 
Chris