[#5218] Ruby Book Eng tl, ch1 question — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

13 messages 2000/10/02

[#5404] Object.foo, setters and so on — "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>

OK, here is what I think I know.

14 messages 2000/10/11

[#5425] Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

18 messages 2000/10/11
[#5427] RE: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — OZAWA -Crouton- Sakuro <crouton@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 03:49:46 +0900,

[#5429] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...> 2000/10/11

Thanks for the input.

[#5432] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:53:41 +0900,

[#5516] Re: Some newbye question — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "D" == Davide Marchignoli <marchign@di.unipi.it> writes:

80 messages 2000/10/13
[#5531] Re: Some newbye question — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2000/10/14

Hi,

[#5544] Re: Some newbye question — Davide Marchignoli <marchign@...> 2000/10/15

On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#5576] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/10/16

matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

[#5617] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...> 2000/10/16

Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> wrote:

[#5705] Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>

There has been discussion on this list/group from time to time about

16 messages 2000/10/20
[#5712] Re: Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@...> 2000/10/20

Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:

[#5882] [RFC] Towards a new synchronisation primitive — hipster <hipster@...4all.nl>

Hello fellow rubyists,

21 messages 2000/10/26

[ruby-talk:5635] Re: lint?

From: Davide Marchignoli <marchign@...>
Date: 2000-10-17 11:45:18 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5635

On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Franz GEIGER wrote:

> > I'm afraid it requires static type information, which Ruby does not have.
> 
> Does it really? What about typos? E.g. someone "defines" a param
> NavigationDefinition but refers to it as NavgationDefinition. Why do we have
> to find such errors at runtime?
> 
...
>
> Finding type mismatches seems to me requiring static typing. But that's step
> two - 1st one has to find all his typos.
> 

I love typed languages, unfortunately the trend in last years (for
scripting languages at least) has been toward untyped languages (someone
could explain why???).

In the broadest sense types are the whole class of static information, and
IMHO the typos you are referring to are a simple instances of type errors
in which the only type you have is the "defined" type.

If your language lacks declaration, you have no way to sort out mispelled
identifiers (not "defined" type errors) from assignement to fresh
variables (a kind of "define" type declaration plus initialization).

Bye,

				Davide


In This Thread