Xref: utzoo comp.object:3334 comp.lang.misc:7599
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao!arizona!gudeman
From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: A Hard Problem for Static Type Systems
Message-ID: <2392@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 91 18:05:16 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Followup-To: comp.object
Lines: 12

In article  <51669@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Darren New writes:
]... Hermies has dynamic typing (via polymorph) without dynamic
]binding (in the normal OO sense).  C++ has some limited dynamic binding
]without dynamic typing.  Smalltalk intermixes the dynamic typing and
]the dynamic binding semantically, muddying the waters.

OK, I give up.  What is the difference between dynamic typing and
dynamic binding?
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman