in reply to Re^5: "strong typing" is potentially ambiguous
in thread (Completely OT) - Hero(i)n programming language on Slashdot
Maybe this is better: A type T is the set of values for which any operation in a given set of operations O is closed over.
I noticed on Lambda that some were complaining about defining types in terms of sets. I'm trying to figure out how you define types without sets ...
As for the term "class" ... isn't a class a coder-defined aggregation of data and coder-defined behaviors? So, in some sense, it would be a coder-defined type, so long as the behaviors were closed over the class ... ?
Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.
|
|---|