On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:42:39AM +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 06/14/2012 01:58 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > Actually writing down the static information can have a huge benefit > on maintainability. (Even in static languages with type inference > like Haskell, where you would not actually need to write down type > signatures, it is common practice to nevertheless do so especially > for exported entities, for better documentation.) Witness gbuild: > we do run into cases there where a macro is called with more > arguments than it expects, and at least I often need to decipher > definitions (or worse, use "monkey see, monkey do" copy/paste) to > figure out what arguments, and in what order, a macro takes. I > would *love* to have a more statically typed machinery there...
The problem with gbuild is not that it is dynamic typed, but that it is weakly typed (everything is a string). Weak typing is a whole different issue and not what I am suggesting. Testing an Any to be of a type able to provide what it should at runtime is still a sane thing to do, and is done anyway most of the time. Best, Bjoern _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
