Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #18455

Re: python philosophical question - strong vs duck typing

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/3/2012 4:06 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>> Python objects are strongly typed, in any sensible meaning of the term.
>
> There are people that hold definitions of strong typing that preclude
> Python. Those people think their definition is reasonable, but at the

Can you give an actual example of such a definition of 'strongly typed 
object' that excludes Python objects?

> same time haven't confused static typing with strong typing. I guess
> the problem is that this boils down to opinion, but you're stating it
> as incontrovertible fact.

This strikes me as petty hair-splitting.

1. By tacking on the qualification, I was acknowledging that someone, 
somewhere, might controvert it. If you allow for arbitrary redefinitions 
of words, you could claim that any statement is an opinion. So what?

2. It ignores the context established by the OP who began with 'Let's 
say we wanted to type strongly in Python' and continued with a question 
about declarations and compilation specifically to C or C++.

In that context, I think my statement qualifies as a fact.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: python philosophical question - strong vs duck typing Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-01-03 16:42 -0500

csiph-web