"no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2005-10-06, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <deets at nospam.web.de>:
>> Suppose we have a typesystem which has the type ANY, which would mean
>> such an object could be any type. You could then have homogenous lists
>> in the sense that all elements should be of the same declared type and
>> at the same time mix all kind of type in a particular list, just
>> as python does.
>
> The you have JAVA Object or C void*. Which cause all kinds of runtime 
> troubles.... because they essentially circumvene the typechecking!

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.

>> So how would this limit python.
>
> The limitation is that in static languages I must _know_ what type to 
> cast such an ANY, before calling anything on it. Otherwise its useless.
>
>>>even though ususally the contents of a list 
>>>share some common behaviour. And that exactly is the key point here: in 
>>>a statically typed world, that common behaviour must have been extracted 
>>>and made explicit.
>> 
>> 
>> Would my suggestion be classified as a statically typed world?
>
> See above.

Your answer tells more about you then about my suggestion.

-- 
Antoon Pardon