On 2/24/07, Anton van Straaten <anton_at_appsolutions.com> wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> > On 2/24/07, John Cowan <cowan_at_ccil.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Matthias Felleisen scripsit:
> >>
> >> > 1. When an implementation is allowed to reject a program without
> >> > running it, it comes with a filter also known as a type system.
> >>
> >> I think that rather stretches the definition of "type system".
> >
> >
> > It doesn't, actually, if you use the terminology of the static type
> > community. A `type system' would encompass any system that
> > performs analysis on the program without actually attempting to
> > execute it.
>
> This assumes that you actually have "a program". Type theorists don't
> usually refer to syntax errors as type errors.
Type theorists have their own unique way of looking at the world.
> John Cowan's proposed text (if (foo)) can be rejected as not being a
> valid program without involving a type system, so even without using a
> stretchy definition of "type system", it doesn't contradict Matthias'
> statement.
I disagree. You can't make a judgement about (if (foo)) without at least
assigning some interpretation to the token `if'.
--
~jrm
Received on Mon Feb 26 2007 - 15:24:44 UTC