From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2003-02-15T08:20:52+09:00
Subject: Re: von Rossum on Strong vs. Weak Typing

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 05:48:57AM +0900, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
> Sat, 15 Feb 2003 04:18:57 +0900, Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> pisze:
> 
> >> Type inferencing doesn't mean the types aren't fully checked at
> >> compile time.  Weak typing implies a bit of run time type checking,
> >> which OCaml doesn't do.
> > 
> > C is weakly typed, but it does not do run-time type checking.
> 
> For me "weakly typed" means that either there is no well-defined
> and interesting concept of the type of each object, or it exists but
> in practice it too often lies.

Am I right if I say that by your definition Ruby is strongly typed?

(just doing some brain gymnastics :)
-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple.  After that, it's all learned.
	-- Bruce Ediger, bediger@teal.csn.org, on X interfaces