Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:26751 comp.lang.misc:4392
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!lanl!lambda!jlg
From: jlg@lambda.UUCP (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: C strongly typed?
Message-ID: <14266@lambda.UUCP>
Date: 9 Mar 90 23:43:04 GMT
References: <849@enea.se> <14262@lambda.UUCP> <11007@june.cs.washington.edu>
Lines: 17

In article <11007@june.cs.washington.edu>, machaffi@fred.cs.washington.edu (Scott MacHaffie) writes:
- In article <14262@lambda.UUCP> jlg@lambda.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
- %Yes C is strongly typed - by the definition of 'strong typing'.  The
- %phrase 'strong typing' means that the type of any object in an scope
- %can be determined at compile time.  So, in the example you gave, it is
- 
- You just described "static typing".

Yes, I did.  The two term are synonymous.  English _does_ have this
annoying habbit of providing more than one word for a given meaning.
This is even true in technical jargon.

The fact is that strong/weak typing is defined (at least in the language
design field) as the distinction between compile-time and run-time type
specification.  If you prefer 'static' to 'strong' that is your choice.

J. Giles