Browse thread
Scripting in ocaml
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2006-12-26 (06:11) |
From: | Chad Perrin <perrin@a...> |
Subject: | Re: strong/weak typing terminology (was Re: [Caml-list] Scripting in ocaml) |
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 10:50:35PM +0100, Tom wrote: > > > > > >> And that is, unsurprisingly, your definition. Can you show me an > >> authoritative source to support your claims ? > >> > >> Anyway, this terminology is as spoiled as this discussion so it is > >> worth not using it. > > > >Yeah, terminology sucks. Let's abandon all terminology. > > > Why so? Why not rather define it, so that it is definite and absolute once > and for all. Then we become that authoritative source... :P My statement was meant to be sarcastic. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] "There comes a time in the history of any project when it becomes necessary to shoot the engineers and begin production." - MacUser, November 1990