Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!i2unix!inria!ilog!barbes!davis From: davis@barbes.ilog.fr (Harley Davis) Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional Subject: Re: A question about types in ML Message-ID: Date: 19 Nov 90 12:01:21 GMT References: <4906@rex.cs.tulane.edu> <2215@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de> <4971@rex.cs.tulane.edu> <11901@life.ai.mit.edu> <2236@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de> Sender: davis@ilog.UUCP Followup-To: comp.lang.functional Distribution: comp Organization: ILOG S.A., Gentilly, France Lines: 28 In-reply-to: wg@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de's message of 17 Nov 90 14:57:45 GMT In article <2236@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de> wg@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Grieskamp) writes: 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? If you include CLOS, this is not true, at least for generic functions. It's still true for variables. -- Harley -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Harley Davis internet: davis@ilog.fr ILOG S.A. uucp: ..!mcvax!inria!ilog!davis 2 Avenue Gallie'ni, BP 85 tel: (33 1) 46 63 66 66 94253 Gentilly Cedex France