Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!udel!ee.udel.edu
From: new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: A Hard Problem for Static Type Systems
Message-ID: <51752@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 91 15:03:08 GMT
References: <1991Apr20.010347.28984@leland.Stanford.EDU> <1991Apr22.151149.9661@watmath.waterloo.edu> <1991Apr24.042652.23886@rice.edu>
Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: estelle.ee.udel.edu

In article <1991Apr24.042652.23886@rice.edu> wright@gefion.rice.edu (Andrew Wright) writes:
>Furthermore, static type systems are able to accomplish some things 
>which cannot be accomplished in dynamic type systems.  Overloading is
>a case in point - the appropriate definition of a overloaded name is
>selected based on information which is not part of a dynamic language.

Excuse me?  Have you looked at Smalltalk lately?  The difference between
overloading and dynamic binding is the difference between static typing
and dynamic typing.  Any dynamically typed language with dynamic binding
has "the appropriate definition of an overloaded name [] selected based
on information" is *is* a part of a dynamic language.  Or do I misunderstand
what you are saying?  
		  -- 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 +=+=+
+=+ Nails work better than screws, when both are driven with screwdrivers +=+