Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!corton!ilog!barbes!davis From: davis@barbes.ilog.fr (Harley Davis) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Type systems: What's the hitch? Message-ID: Date: 13 Feb 91 13:47:55 GMT References: <1227@culhua.prg.ox.ac.uk> Sender: davis@ilog.fr Distribution: comp.lang.lisp Organization: ILOG S.A., Gentilly, France Lines: 22 In-reply-to: jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu's message of 12 Feb 91 18:21:11 GMT In article jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Guillermo J. Rozas) writes: like scheme seem much "cleaner" and "nicer". But even scheme lacks the kind of type support available in the modula/pascal/oberon language family, or in languages like ML. Your statement seems to imply that there is consensus that such type systems are desirable. Some of us in the Scheme community, and I bet many in the Lisp community, view such type systems as a step backwards, not forwards. What problem do the Scheme people have with the CL type system? Is it the complex type combination language, CLOS, some basic issue concerning extensible types, or something else? -- Harley -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ nom: Harley Davis ILOG S.A. net: davis@ilog.fr 2 Avenue Gallie'ni, BP 85 tel: (33 1) 46 63 66 66 94253 Gentilly Cedex, France