Summary: strong/weak typing and pointers

[Carl Banks]

Jeff Shannon <jeff at ccvcorp.com> wrote in message news:<10p7h4rphhpg64c at corp.supernews.com>...
> >If you paid attention
> >in your study of grammar, [...]
> 
> Please don't assume that someone who disagrees with you is either 
> uneducated or stupid.  It's rather insulting and wholly inappropriate.

Testy?  What, do you expect me to automatically give you credit for
having paid attention to some decades-ago schooling unrelated to you
field of work, even though I've never met or spoken to you?

Anyways, although you've claimed "rigid" is very specific in meaning,
based on some dictionary entries, I really don't see any arguments
that tried to refute my claim that "rigid" could be easily taken to
mean inability to reinterpret bits, or less easily to mean static
typing.  Conversely, I also didn't see any good examples of how
"solid" could easily mean something else.  (I thought the idea that it
could refer to data hiding quite a stretch, although not totally off
the wall.  Nevertheless, I would say "rigid" is vastly more applicable
to interpreting bits than "solid" is to data hiding.)

I would like to see your ideas and thoughts about how applicable
"solid" and "rigid" are specifically to typing.  I've already stated
my thoughts about this.  What objections to you have those points?


-- 
CARL BANKS