Summary: strong/weak typing and pointers

[Carl Banks]

aleaxit at yahoo.com (Alex Martelli) wrote in message news:<1gn4za8.1sdorbl11cqco5N%aleaxit at yahoo.com>...
> Carl Banks <imbosol at aerojockey.com> wrote:
> 
> > My criteria is not whether the meaning is literal or figurative, but
> > whether it's specific.  Solid is; rigid isn't.
> 
> Hmmmm... I like to bank with a solid bank --> they won't go bankrupt
> tomorrow.  Hopefully they're not rigid --> can accomodate to changing
> circumstances.  And the bank's officers have years of solid experience
> at their jobs, and deserve my solid trust...

Heh.  I can see how solid in the sense of solid bank could apply to a
typing system, as an overall description of how robust it is (but not
indicative of any dimension of typing in particular, although you
could of course say that particular dimension is solid).  Python has
an overall solid typing system.

I don't see how solid in the sense of solid experience (i.e.,
uninterrupted) would apply to any aspect of typing very well, any more
than solid as in solid wood (not hollow) would.

I still think, in the end, rigid is more vague for this use.  Good
example, though.


-- 
CARL BANKS