From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B662BC0B for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2006 07:11:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from host15.ipowerweb.com (host15.ipowerweb.com [66.235.219.115]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kBQ6BFtQ005817 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2006 07:11:16 +0100 Received: from c-24-9-123-251.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.9.123.251] helo=apotheon.com) by host15.ipowerweb.com with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Gz5WQ-0004Rk-IH; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:10:46 -0800 Received: by apotheon.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6E5CD33433; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 23:10:51 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 23:10:51 -0700 From: Chad Perrin To: Tom Cc: Chad Perrin , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: strong/weak typing terminology (was Re: [Caml-list] Scripting in ocaml) Message-ID: <20061226061051.GB10286@apotheon.com> References: <20061221221650.GL9440@apotheon.com> <3EC73FC3-41A6-4FB1-9549-29286A6568CC@epfl.ch> <1166811403.6555.46.camel@rosella.wigram> <4E1EAAC5-DC08-4A55-9AEB-0D5D3BE1C0EA@epfl.ch> <1166816522.7448.45.camel@rosella.wigram> <20061223160612.GA8851@apotheon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host15.ipowerweb.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - yquem.inria.fr X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - apotheon.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4590BD03.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 0100,:01 23,:98 wrote:01 typing:01 caml-list:01 define:01 strong:96 weak:04 ccd:94 ccd:94 dec:05 anyway:06 meant:06 discussion:07 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