statically typed language

_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

Hi,

What choice exactly? You mean why have FAMIX statically typed? Actually, it is not. Only its description in terms of Fame is. And  one of the reasons why Fame is rather strongly typed is to make it easier to have it in funny languages like Java.

But, now that we are at it, declared types are not bad as long as they only affect tools and do not interfere with compilation and runtime.

Cheers,
Doru

On Apr 1, 2013, at 10:10 PM, Nicolas Anquetil <[hidden email]> wrote:

--
www.tudorgirba.com

"Problem solving should be focused on describing
the problem in a way that makes the solution obvious."





_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

But it becomes e bit cumbersome. For example in Smalltalk AST a variable can
be either used in a variable expression or in assignment expression, so you
can't just define a parrentExpression relation

Uko



--
View this message in context: http://moose-dev.97923.n3.nabble.com/statically-typed-language-tp4026682p4026702.html
Sent from the moose-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

Sure. A type should be used only when it is useful.

In your case, we would need a Trait, but short of that, you can just not define the type at all.

Cheers,
Doru


On Apr 2, 2013, at 8:27 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <[hidden email]> wrote:

--
www.tudorgirba.com

"What we can governs what we wish."




_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev