Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Dynamic typing (part 3)
Message-ID: <JT4AE6F@xds13.ferranti.com>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
References: <815@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <W+3AE38@xds13.ferranti.com> <20MAR91.08580313@uc780.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 20:34:58 GMT

In article <20MAR91.08580313@uc780.umd.edu> cs450a03@uc780.umd.edu writes:
> Peter da Silva writes:
> >This is fine if the code is:
> >	Known to be correct and debugged,
> >and/or	Your code,
> >and	You wrote it recently,
> >or	You just finished tracing it all and thus know it intimately.

> Hmm... I spend a lot of time debugging and upgrading old code. [etc...]

You're over-generalising my response. I am talking about the particular
case where you know what the "type" of a value is because of the immediate
context assuming that the usage is valid. I don't: I have to look at a
declaration or look at more than just the immediate context.

> Oddly enough, I rarely have to trace it.

I didn't intend imply that you have to. What I mean here is that *unless
you have* traced it you can't look at a random piece of code and know
the types of all the objects being dealt with. The ones you're familiar
with, yes.

[the only useful comments are]
> the ones that identify the purpose of the function, or perhaps the
> purpose of a variable.

That is, type declarations. Hmmmm.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
