Re: Strong Types ?

"oliverhunt@gmail.com" <oliverhunt@gmail.com>
28 Apr 2007 23:31:36 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Strong Types ? hossein.rohani@gmail.com (gygulance) (2007-04-26)
Re: Strong Types ? torbenm@app-6.diku.dk (2007-04-27)
Re: Strong Types ? scgupta@yahoo.com (Satish Chandra Gupta) (2007-04-27)
Re: Strong Types ? oliverhunt@gmail.com (oliverhunt@gmail.com) (2007-04-28)
Staic typechecking in OO [was Re: Strong Types ?] Sebastian.Kaliszewski@softax.pl (Sebastian Kaliszewski) (2007-05-04)
Re: Static typechecking in OO [was Re: Strong Types ?] oliverhunt@gmail.com (oliverhunt@gmail.com) (2007-05-06)
Re: Static typechecking in OO [was Re: Strong Types ?] Sebastian.Kaliszewski@softax.pl (Sebastian Kaliszewski) (2007-05-14)
Re: Strong Types ? kamalpr@gmail.com (IndianTechie) (2007-05-21)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "oliverhunt@gmail.com" <oliverhunt@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 28 Apr 2007 23:31:36 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 07-04-12307-04-124
Keywords: types
Posted-Date: 28 Apr 2007 23:31:36 EDT

>
> But to return to your question: If "type binding" means what I think
> it means, if a language has both static type checking and type
> binding, it can be strongly typed, but it does not need to be.
>
> Torben


Like C++ :D


As with ML, Haskell is also strongly and statically typed, though if I
think about it I think ML is also based off the Damas-Milner type
system


One thing to note is that in general it is not possible to completely
statically check a strongly typed OO programming language if it allows
down casting, though i only mention this as it's a pet peave of mine
:D

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.