User loginNavigation 
Defining Types not as Classes but as Mathematical SetsHi, long time browser, first time posting. My background is largely in the C family of languages (specifically C, Java, and C#) but I've been reading into dynamic languages and it got me thinking about the advantages of dynamic type systems and bringing some of their advantages into the static world without sacrificing the bonuses static typing brings. An idea popped into my head when I asked what if an object's type and an object's class were different things and variables only refered to the former and were ignorant of the latter? Furthermore what if you viewed a type as a mathematical set of methods defining one method as equal to another method when their names and signatures are the same? For example, in such a system the following Java code wouldn't result in an error.
Essentially you get dynamic type membership and static type capabilities. So I'm pondering: By William Davis at 20070401 23:15  LtU Forum  previous forum topic  next forum topic  other blogs  4343 reads

Browse archivesActive forum topics 
Recent comments
2 weeks 2 hours ago
2 weeks 4 hours ago
2 weeks 12 hours ago
2 weeks 13 hours ago
2 weeks 1 day ago
2 weeks 1 day ago
2 weeks 3 days ago
2 weeks 4 days ago
3 weeks 2 days ago
3 weeks 2 days ago