Anton van Straaten schrieb: > Joachim Durchholz wrote: >> Anton van Straaten schrieb: >>> There's a close connection between latent types in the sense I've >>> described, and the "tagged values" present at runtime. However, as >>> type theorists will tell you, the tags used to tag values at runtime, >>> as e.g. a number or a string or a FooBar object, are not the same >>> thing as the sort of types which statically-typed languages have. >> >> Would that be a profound difference, or is it just that annotating a >> value with a full type expression would cause just too much runtime >> overhead? > > It's a profound difference. The issue is that it's not just the values > that need to be annotated with types, it's also other program terms.
Yes - but isn't that essentially just auxiliary data from and for the data-flow analysis that tracks what values with what types might reach which functions? > In > addition, during a single run of a program, all it can ever normally do > is record the types seen on the path followed during that run, which > doesn't get you to static types of terms. To figure out the static > types, you really need to do static analysis. Agreed. Regards, Jo -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
