Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Dynamic typing (part 3) Message-ID: Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC References: <815@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <20MAR91.08580313@uc780.umd.edu> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 20:34:58 GMT In article <20MAR91.08580313@uc780.umd.edu> cs450a03@uc780.umd.edu writes: > Peter da Silva writes: > >This is fine if the code is: > > Known to be correct and debugged, > >and/or Your code, > >and You wrote it recently, > >or You just finished tracing it all and thus know it intimately. > Hmm... I spend a lot of time debugging and upgrading old code. [etc...] You're over-generalising my response. I am talking about the particular case where you know what the "type" of a value is because of the immediate context assuming that the usage is valid. I don't: I have to look at a declaration or look at more than just the immediate context. > Oddly enough, I rarely have to trace it. I didn't intend imply that you have to. What I mean here is that *unless you have* traced it you can't look at a random piece of code and know the types of all the objects being dealt with. The ones you're familiar with, yes. [the only useful comments are] > the ones that identify the purpose of the function, or perhaps the > purpose of a variable. That is, type declarations. Hmmmm. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"