Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!unido!tub!tubopal!wg
From: wg@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Grieskamp)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
Subject: What is strong typing? (Was: I like strong typing)
Message-ID: <1689@opal.tubopal.UUCP>
Date: 27 Jul 90 23:58:11 GMT
References: <4387@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Sender: news@tubopal.UUCP
Reply-To: wg@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de
Followup-To: comp.lang.functional
Organization: Technical University of Berlin
Lines: 25

farrell@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Friendless) writes:

>jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) writes:
>>Despite what some people say, i don't think strong typing is such a good deal.
>>It catches obvious errors, but doesn't do you any good against less obvious
>>bugs.

>  This is no reason to reject it! But the best thing about strong typing is
>the fact that you can take advantage of it when you compile things, by knowing
>for example whether they want arguments or not, and you can make assumptions
>about what they return when they evaluate, etc. Types are also useful as a
>framework for the programmer to think about the roles of various parts of his
>program.

What is strong typing? Is it just the case that every member of a 
sum-of-products establish some type and all together another type? 
Does it requires open type implementations or do you introduce 
abstract sort names for each member of the sum? Is the domain of a 
constrained object an anonymous one? 

Exists any standard paper about strong typing?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wolfgang Grieskamp 
wg@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de tub!tubopal!wg wg%opal@DB0TUI11.BITNET