Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!unify!dbrus.Unify.Com!brian
From: dbrus.Unify.Com.brian@unify.uucp (Brian Meyerpeter )
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Do we really need types in OOPL's?
Message-ID: <0yw10qr@Unify.Com>
Date: 21 Sep 90 07:20:55 GMT
Sender: news@Unify.Com (news admin)
Reply-To: dbrus.Unify.Com.brian@unify.uucp (Brian Meyerpeter )
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, CA, USA
Lines: 19

I have a question that has been bugging me for a long time.  

Why does Eiffel try to be a typed language?  Shouldn't dynamic binding
allow for any type to be assigned to anytype?  It might be a nice feature
to restrict assignments (dynamic binding) in some cases but in others
I don't think so. 

In an ideally object-oriented language shouldn't you be able to assign
a class of any type to another class of any type as long as the 
client that is assigning them knows their interface and does not 
abuse it?

I would appreciate comments on this subject.  I will repost the
responses if I get enough.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Meyerpeter    "At 10 they're all 2's and at 2 they're all 10's"
                     Quote from the Red Barn at Chico State
--------------------------------------------------------------------