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!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Sender: jsa@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com> <87eklg62x8.fsf@news.bourguet.org> From: jayessay Organization: Tangible Date: 12 Sep 2004 11:59:21 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: DXC=n^oda1? Georg Bauhaus writes: > Now consider a situation where there are no two similarly named > functions in the environment, with similar results, both producing > values of the same Lisp number type, and both consuming arguments of > the same number types. > > I think that a static type system like Ada's, if used, will > likely catch a logic error at compile time, that is when by mistake > one function is used where the other should have been used. This is at best unlikely as has been demonstrated. Types, type systems, and type consistency offer little to no help with this. /Jon -- 'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com