haberg-1 at telia.com
Sat Sep 4 12:12:19 EDT 2010
On 4 Sep 2010, at 17:46, Kassen wrote:
> It is not having a type system that is causing problems, but that it
> often is a bit underdeveloped.
> Yes, and malnourished. >:-)
> For example, if one wants dynamic typing, that can be done by having
> a type by which the other types can be derived dynamically. Then the
> problems like the one above cane be done by introducing a new type.
> We can do that for non-primitives, but we can't ask a given object
> "Hey, what's your type?". Exactly that is high on my wishlist.
That may already have it by its implementation. When looking into the
sources, I think I saw a base class object from which all others were
derived. If so, it is the Java grammar imposed on top that restricts it.
More information about the chuck-users