Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aipdc
From: aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Dynamic typing (part 3)
Message-ID: <9149@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 14 Mar 91 01:34:21 GMT
References: <618@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Organization: Put your analyst on danger money, baby!
Lines: 17

In article <618@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>In article  <9106@castle.ed.ac.uk> Paul Crowley writes:
>--[description of a Logo's lack of type extension]--
>]...  Prolog behaves this way too. 
>
>In prolog you can create a new type by making it a set of terms with
>the same name/arity.  That makes it pretty much the same thing as a C
>struct.

How is a language in which you can say [imaginary,5,3] different from
one in which you can say imaginary(5,3)?  My problem with both is the
way they're both perfectly happy with imaginary(this_doesnt,make_sense).

You could solve it with a dynamically typed OO language, I suppose.
                                         ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley aipdc@uk.ac.ed.castle \  /
/\__/ Part straight. Part gay. All queer. \/