Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!mucs!m1!bevan From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Static type inference? (was Re: Runtime Polymorphism) Message-ID: Date: 6 Mar 91 08:43:38 GMT References: <559@coatimundi.cs.arizona.edu> <2741@enea.se> <1991Mar5.180306.1561@uicbert.eecs.uic.edu> Sender: news@cs.man.ac.uk Distribution: comp Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester Lines: 20 In-reply-to: wilson@uicbert.eecs.uic.edu's message of 5 Mar 91 18:03:06 GMT > On the other hand, the ability to have run-time dynamic types is > important. There are times when you really want a collection of > objects of different types. But maybe the best compromise is to > use type-inferred static typing by default, and have a way of > specifiying real runtime polymorphism as well. Most of the gain > without most of the pain. (No, I don't have a proposal as to what > such a language ought to be like, in detail. Others probably do, though.) From the little I know about FX, it seems this language gives you what you want. It's based on Scheme, but includes optional type declarations. Those that you don't define, the system infers. For more information on FX :- Report on FX-90 Programming Language David K. Gifford, Pierre Jouvelot and Mark A. Sheldon Programming Systems Research Group Massachusetts Institute of Technology Stephen J. Bevan bevan@cs.man.ac.uk