Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!udel!ee.udel.edu
From: new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Run-time Type Errors in Smalltalk (was Re: blip (was...))
Message-ID: <49910@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 5 Apr 91 19:07:01 GMT
References: <887@puck.mrcu> <2367@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> <1991Apr5.152736.22353@kodak.kodak.com>
Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 24
Nntp-Posting-Host: snow-white.ee.udel.edu

In article <1991Apr5.152736.22353@kodak.kodak.com> cok@islsun.Kodak.COM (David Cok) writes:
>I vaguely remember from some early programming class ages ago that declarations
>were touted not as a way to provide type-checking, but to save the
>programmer from misspelling variable names (by requiring that each one be
>written at least twice in a program)! 

This does not preclude dynamic typing.  In Smalltalk, you declare the
names of all your local variables. The first time you compile code with
a new global variable, it confirms that you spelled it right and allows
you to find the "closest fit" name if not (try *that* in your favorite C compiler :-).  Dynamic typing just means that declarations don't include types,
not that they don't declare variables.

>FORTRAN's implicit declarations
>were forbidden in that class.

And how did you know that you didn't implicitly declare a variable
by mistake?   (or do you mean FORTRAN's implicit *statement*?)
	    -- Darren

-- 
--- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware ---
----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, FDTs -----
  +=+=+ My time is very valuable, but unfortunately only to me +=+=+
+ When you drive screws with a hammer, screwdrivers are unrecognisable +