On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:42:39AM +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 06/14/2012 01:58 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
Actually writing down the static information can have a huge benefit
on maintainability. (Even in static languages with type inference
like Haskell, where you would not actually need to write down type
signatures, it is common practice to nevertheless do so especially
for exported entities, for better documentation.) Witness gbuild:
we do run into cases there where a macro is called with more
arguments than it expects, and at least I often need to decipher
definitions (or worse, use "monkey see, monkey do" copy/paste) to
figure out what arguments, and in what order, a macro takes. I
would *love* to have a more statically typed machinery there...
The problem with gbuild is not that it is dynamic typed, but that it is weakly
typed (everything is a string).
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.