Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!unido!opal!wg
From: wg@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Grieskamp)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
Subject: Re: A question about types in ML
Message-ID: <2236@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Date: 17 Nov 90 14:57:45 GMT
References: <fraser.658398987@melomys> <4906@rex.cs.tulane.edu> 	<2215@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de> <4971@rex.cs.tulane.edu> 	<11901@life.ai.mit.edu> <PETERSON-JOHN.90Nov15223106@object.cs.yale.edu>
Sender: news@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de
Reply-To: wg@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de
Followup-To: comp.lang.functional
Distribution: comp
Organization: Technical University of Berlin
Lines: 16
Nntp-Posting-Host: troll.cs.tu-berlin.de

peterson-john@cs.yale.edu (John C. Peterson) writes:

  >Regarding typing in Common Lisp & ML, it is incorrect to say that
  >Common Lisp lacks types; type declarations in CL are actually far more
  >general than those in ML.  What Common Lisp lacks is any sort of well
  >defined type inference, a major deficiency.

As i remember from a short afair with LISP some years ago, type 
declarations in CL are always monomorphic: no parametric 
polymorphy, no type variables. 

Hence the "far more generalicity" you mentioned is to omit types? 

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