"no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2005-10-07, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <deets at nospam.web.de>:
>> Why do you call this a JAVA Object or C void*? Why don't you call
>> it a PYTHON object. It is this kind of reaction that IMO tells most
>> opponents can't think outside the typesystems they have already
>> seen and project the problems with those type systems on what
>> would happen with python should it acquire a type system.
>
> Well, because maybe I wanted you to give you an example of languages 
> that are statically typed and have such an any construct

But since I have no such type system in mind, such an example is useless.

> - that, by the 
> way, is not a piece of inguine imagination of yours, but has been 
> thought of before, e.g. CORBA (and called there any, too)? It makes no 
> sense putting python into that context - as it is _not_ statically 
> typed. Which you should know, after discussing this very subject way too 
> long.

The fact that something else uses the same name, for something
doesn't mean it has to be implemented the same way.

>>>>Would my suggestion be classified as a statically typed world?
>>>
>>>See above.
>> 
>> 
>> Your answer tells more about you then about my suggestion.
>
> Your answer tells us something too: Just because you don't know anything 
> about typechecking does not mean that you are in the position to make 
> assumptions on "how things could work if the people who know stuff 
> wouldn't be so stupid". That's like saying "cars can't fly because the 
> stupid engineers lack my sense of imagination."

Then argue against my ideas, and not your makings of it.

If I just use 'ANY' and you fill that in with C void* like
implementation and argue against that, then you are arguing
against your own ghosts, but not against what I have in mind.

It may very well turn out that my idea is useless, but I will
only accept that when someone comes with arguments against
my actual idea, and not with arguements against their projection
of it.

> Just blathering about the possibility of some super-duper-typechecker 
> and countering criticism or being told about problems in that domain by 
> making bold statements that this sure could work - provide us with an 
> implementation.

You have not counterd my idea with criticism. You have decorated my
idea with how you think it would be implemented (C void*) and argued
against that. I don't need to give an implementation to notice, that
you jumped to a particular implementation and basicly just countered
that implementation, not the idea in general.

> Or maybe - just maybe - you could sit back and think about the fact that 
> lots of people who are way cleverer than you and me have been working on 
> this subject, and so far haven't found a way. Which doesn't necessarily 
> mean that there is no way - but certainly its hard, theory-laden work 
> and won't emerge in a NG discussion by some snide remarks of either you 
> or anybody else.

As far as I'm concerned that was just meant as a matter of fact remark,
with no snide intentions.

-- 
Antoon Pardon