[E-Lang] static typing
Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:09:10 -0700
Dean Tribble <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Security purist: believing the type system when it claims "no really, that
> object is money" when strong encapsulation prevents you from seeing inside
> it is well not the type of safe that is important :-)
> and most important:
> Network purist: the machine at the other end of a wire is defined entirely
> in terms of its wire protocol, and might be implemented in an entirely
> different language. Thus, a particular "object" could act like a Foo one
> moment, and a Bar the next. What was its type again?
I'm having trouble reconciling this point of view with another one.
The other view says a BrandMaker creates an abstract datatype -- the
sealer is the constructor, the unsealer is the accessor. When you use
unsealers or vouching you're making sure an object is of the right
type so you can trust its implementation of the protocol for that
type. (It only has that implication if the type constructor is
closely held, of course.)
Is this a bad way to think about it? AFAIK it's my own idea coming
from reading examples and no actual experience.