Re: weak and strict type checking RFC

On 04.07.2009, at 21:10, Paul Biggar <paul.biggar@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

I did Not specify what doesnt Match in the RFC. I will fix that omission on monday. I assumed it was clear that i tried to Provide Complete examples for what will Pass. So Passung a String with anything but 1 or 0 would Not Pass à Bool Type check. The other Thing that i wanted to make clear is that After the weak Type check is that a cast should Happen afterwards. Finally i wanted to clarify my concerns about Structure typing to ensure that the Short Syntax is a weak check and only with additional Chars like the proposed ! Or something like that, can One get a Strict Type check. Regards, Lukas