Re: weak and strict type checking RFC

On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith<mls@pooteeweet.org> wrote: >> I can't see the difference between your proposal and the conclusion I >> reached yesterday? >> >> (which was that there is a near consensus around strict checks by >> default, with casts allowed with some syntax). > > Well to me it Sounded like you wanted to Rely on Standard Type juggling and > what i am proposing is more strict than that. More over i am Not convinced > that strict should Be the Default. I don't know what you mean by standard type-juggling. Your proposal really does not outline what you want very much, just what you're against. As for strictness, if your proposal suggests that strict typing is the default, I cannot see where. As I see it, each proposal is a very minor variation on the other. My proposal had an extra layer, but it it wasn't well received, so I've withdrawn it. Ilia has a patch now that does what I understand you want, using the (int) syntax, with strict by default. I may be wrong, but I believe the only thing left to argue about is strict versus weak by default. I was originally of the opinion that weak typing should be the default. However, it had barely any support, whereas there was great support for strict by default. Thanks, Paul -- Paul Biggar paul.biggar@gmail.com