Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Fergus Henderson]

Pascal Costanza <costanza at web.de> writes:
>Fergus Henderson wrote:
>>Pascal Costanza <costanza at web.de> writes:
>>>Fergus Henderson wrote:
>>>>The program includes a definition for "eval", and "eval" is an
>>>>interpreter, So in that sense, we have added a new interpreter.
>>>
>>>That's the whole point of my argument.
>> 
>> Then it's a pretty silly argument. 
>> 
>> You ask if we can implement eval, which is an interpreter,
>> without including an interpreter? 
>
>Right.

Then the answer is obviously no -- regardless of which language you use,
and whether it is statically typed or not.  In some cases the interpreter
might be included as part of the standard library or even as a builtin-in
language feature, in other cases it may need to be written as part of the
program, but either way, it will still need to be included.

>> I don't see what you could usefully conclude from the answer.
>
>...that you can't statically type check your code as soon as you 
>incorporate an interpreter/compiler into your program that can interact 
>with and change your program at runtime in arbitrary ways.

This conclusion doesn't follow.  How could it, since neither the question
nor the answer made any reference to static type checking?

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.