From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,c406e0c4a6eb74ed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail From: jayessay Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Formal and informal type systems? Date: 29 Sep 2004 11:32:56 -0400 Organization: Tangible Sender: jsa@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com Message-ID: References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com> <413e2fbd$0$30586$626a14ce@news.free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZOVY+NLSl9XIjPksCyfMB+xlF0szFBM+dPNUz1sbt1SO+FeCB1fw+d X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Sep 2004 15:25:56 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4390 Date: 2004-09-29T15:25:56+00:00 List-Id: Wojtek Narczynski writes: > > Could you be a little clearer about this? I don't understand your > > point as stated. Certainly there is no mandate to use a "function as > > argument" in any general sense. Sure, functions are a data type in > > Common Lisp, but that is not anything about the structural/conceptual > > level of the type system. > > Come on. "Functions are data type", yet it has nothing to do with a type > system? Right. I'm talking about how the type system is constructed and its constraints, etc. Simple example: you could have a flat set of data types one of which is a function data type or a forest of type categories, under which is some function data type, or some tree of types (somewhere in which is a function data type). When I was talking about "type system", I meant the structure and conceptual founding of it, not the particular types that might be laying around in it. > I don't think we can reach total agreement on this offtopic thread > though :-) We can agree on this! ;-) /Jon -- 'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com