Re: [TYPES] Types
Dan Ghica <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.science.types |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
[ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ] On 12 May 2014, at 22:24, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]> wrote: > Viewing types as restrictive or enabling mechanisms is simply a matter of perspective, not intrinsic to the idea/language itself. One man's "types rule out X" is another man's "with types you can say that you can't get X" in a program. Since you said ‘intrinsic’, I will mention another classic: The Meaning of Types : From Intrinsic to Extrinsic Semantics , by Reynolds http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2290&context=compsci I think it addresses the issue Vladimir raised head on. From the abstract: "A definition of a typed language is said to be “intrinsic” if it assigns meanings to typings rather than arbitrary phrases, so that ill-typed phrases are meaningless. In contrast, a definition is said to be “extrinsic” if all phrases have meanings that are independent of their typings, while typings represent properties of these meanings.” drg Dr. Dan R. Ghica Reader in Semantics of Programming Languages University of Birmingham, School of Computer Science