type safety (was Re: FAQ terminology harmonisation)
Fri Apr 4 18:02:03 CEST 2003
On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 16:43:38 +0100
"C.Reinke" <C.Reinke@REDACTED> wrote:
> > (or, I don't follow you and you'll have to give me an example.)
> oh, but I did!-) After the commented example quoted from the
> programming rules, I added a variant of the queue based on this
> idea. Obviously too well hidden, sorry. If that example doesn't
> clarify the idea, please let me know..
Oops. I mistook it for part of the programming rules.
And yes, what you mean is clearer to me now.
> > [..pattern matching and is_sometype(X) expose internal structure ..]
> Yes, procedural data structures as used in the example would still
> visibly give you tuples of functions, but they would do so for _all_
> data abstractions.
As long as everyone used this method :)
That's the real problem - no matter which way you do it, it's currently
handled only by discipline and convention, rather than by the language.
So maybe our convention is typesafe - but our language isn't.
And since not everyone uses the same convention (though I'm certain any
deviations come solely from innocent oversight :), the convention isn't
much typesafe either...
More information about the erlang-questions