Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pur-ee.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!iuvax!cjl
From: cjl@iuvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Strong Typing and Ignorance - (nf)
Message-ID: <1242@pur-ee.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Dec-83 22:27:54 EST
Article-I.D.: pur-ee.1242
Posted: Tue Dec 13 22:27:54 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 16-Dec-83 01:27:08 EST
Sender: notes@pur-ee.UUCP
Organization: Electrical Engineering Department , Purdue University
Lines: 30

#R:utcsrgv:-289200:iuvax:11800006:000:1030
iuvax!cjl    Dec 13 15:15:00 1983


>>> ARRRRGHHHHH!!!!!!!
>>> The properties of a language are independent of its implementation!  Please
>>> don't confuse the two.  If a Pascal compiler failed to perform any type-

I would say this is not an implementation issue. The separation of function
between lint and c compiler has its practical rationale. 
As a system programming language, C chooses not to enforce strongly type 
checking but an optional part, i.e. a weak type checking approach, so 
system programming can be done by cheating. 

In page 3 of the "The C programming language" : 

   C is not a strongly-typed language in the sense of Pascal or Algol 68...

So apparently lint is only treated as a software tool, not part of the C
language definition. The C reference manual does not even mention lint.

In contrast, Modula-2 defines low level types ADDRESS WORD and type
transfer functions such that strongly type checking is still enforced 
while the flavor of system programming is retained.

Chingmin Jim Lo, CS dept, IUPUI
cjl.Indiana@UDEL-Relay