Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!chinet!nucsrl!gore
From: gore@nucsrl.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Dynamically bound and statically typed (was: OOPS)
Message-ID: <4000007@nucsrl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Feb-87 16:30:23 EST
Article-I.D.: nucsrl.4000007
Posted: Tue Feb 17 16:30:23 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Feb-87 22:25:42 EST
References: <4337@columbia.UUCP>
Organization: Northwestern U, Evanston IL, USA
Lines: 23

/ rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) /  3:33 am  Feb 15, 1987 /
> [...]  by adding "type" declarations to a Smalltalk program, it
> is possible for the compiler to check "types" at compile time, and
> guarantee that 'message not understood' errors will not occur at
> runtime.  [...]
> 
> On the other hand:  even in the situation described in the paragraph
> above, it is not possible to know which method body will be bound to
> a given message (indeed more than one method body may be bound, at
> different times, to any particular message send).  Even though we
> know at compile time that 'message not understood' errors cannot
> occur -- in other words the code is statically checked -- we do not
> know (cannot know) which methods will be bound to which message sends. [...]

It seems hard for some people with Smalltalk way of thinking about objects and
messages (and this includes myself) to see how you could do what you describe.  

Could you give an example?  Just invent a typing syntax for Smalltalk, and
demonstrate on some short program sections.

Jacob Gore
Northwestern University, Computer Science Research Lab
{ihnp4,chinet}!nucsrl!gore