Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!SOPHIST.UCHICAGO.EDU!goer
From: goer@SOPHIST.UCHICAGO.EDU (Richard Goerwitz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.icon
Subject: type conversion
Message-ID: <9004100609.AA06171@sophist.uchicago.edu>
Date: 10 Apr 90 06:09:59 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 29


I find that I don't make much use of automatic type conversion.
Even though this feature lies at the heart of the Icon implemen-
tation, I wonder how much it lies at the heart of the language's
conception.

Normally, if I think that a type conversion will occur, I make
the conversion explicit with a builtin function like string()
or cset() or integer().  I find that if conversions are occurring
where I don't know about them, they are *usually* indicative of
sloppy programming on my part.

If automatic type conversion disappeared, what sorts of ramifications
would it have?  Would some aspect of the language that I haven't
considered be radically altered?  Or would it permit greater
speed and allow for fuller implementation of things like operator
overloading (which some seem to want)?

What if we had optional static typing?  Would this offer the best
of both worlds?  How would such a feature be implemented and inte-
grated into the rest of the language (if in fact it is desirable
in the first place)?  Would it be hard to do?

I don't claim to be a theoretician.  Any discussion or clarification
would be much appreciated.  Flames as well.  I don't take this sort
of thing too personally.

    -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%sophist@uchicago.bitnet
    goer@sophist.uchicago.edu         rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goer