"no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

[Diez B. Roggisch]

> 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 - 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.

>>>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."

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.

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.


Diez