"no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

[Diez B. Roggisch]

Antoon Pardon wrote:
> 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.

Well, you didn't tell us what you had in mind. You just said "let's
introduce something like any". I showed you existing implementations of
such a concept that have problems. You say "thats not what _I_ have in
mind, so your criticism doesn't apply." Guess what, I can't read your
mind. But you did not tell me in what your idea is different from
existing concepts.

> 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.

Again - where is your idea layed out in (more) detail, so that one can
discuss them? That was all that I'm asking - which of course you
carefully avoided...

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

Where exactly come the facts? All I see is some vague "there should be
something better, by introducing ANY". But no details how typechecking
then would work. I showed you that existing type systems can't properly
cope with ANY so far and allow for much errors. Just saying "but mine
won't" is a little bit thin, don't you think?l

Diez