Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.lisp,msu.cps.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!emory!darwin.sura.net!blaze.cs.jhu.edu!news.jhu.edu!aplcenmp!hall
From: hall@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall)
Subject: Re: Why typing?
Message-ID: <DFGrLp.Bzr@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>
Organization: JHU/APL AI Lab, Hopkins P/T CS Faculty
References: <BLUME.95Sep21153818@atomic.cs.princeton.edu> <DFBCKn.7os@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> <444h1m$396@larry.rice.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 13:46:37 GMT
Lines: 19
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.software-eng:37298 comp.lang.functional:6456 comp.lang.lisp:19200

shriram@europa.cs.rice.edu (Shriram Krishnamurthi) writes:
>hall@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall) writes in support of SML:

> [Drawbacks of SML type inferencing algorithm].

As a Common Lisp developer who has only dabbled in SML, I freely admit
that I have not pushed the limits of the SML type inferencing. My
point was to people like me (Lisp hackers) who normally think of
strong typing as getting in their way (based on C++/Pascal
experience): take a look at SML; it might make you, like me, modify
your opinions.

>> And unlike C++, you *really* cannot have type errors at runtime.
>
>No, but you can have variant errors.

I have no idea what those are. Explain?
						- Marty
(proclaim '(inline skates))
