Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Strong versus (weak|runtime) typing
 John Cowan <cowan@m...> writes: > Alaric B. Snell scripsit: > > > > Or PL/I that Sean mentioned. I seem to remember a variable was assumed > > > to be a double if its name started with 'n' and other types for other > > > initials. So when you made a typo, nubmer_of_things was was not > > > reported as an error but rather contained garbage, and possibly of a > > > different type than what you expected. But of course it all worked > > > through autoconversions, until you suddenly got an underflow on what > > > you thought was an integer. > > > > Ugh! That sounds broken. However, if you're using a naming convention to > > signal types to the compiler, that's still static typing... > > Yes indeed. For the record, PL/I used the Fortran convention: if a > variable name began with I, J, K, L, M, or N, it was predeclared an > integer (a 16-bit one in PL/I, the local integer type in Fortran); > otherwise, it was predeclared a single-precision float. > > One way to detect such blunders as nubmer_of_things was to look through > the cross-reference listing for any variables only mentioned once. > They were essentially always such typos. The compiler I used would issue an [I]nformatory message (lower severity than [W]arning [E]rror and [U]ndefined -- aren't you glad it had all these grades of messages?) for every implicit declaration, and like you say, almost all [I]'s would turn out to be typos. But the language was still strongly and statically typed. Ari. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
