[DGD] typechecking modes

[Felix A. Croes]

Michael McKiel <crashnbrn71 at yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Felix A. Croes wrote:
> > But -- that's definitely changing the language.  Typechecking modes
> > merely make mandatory what is already possible in typechecking mode 0.
> > Increasing the typechecking level doesn't change the meaning of code
> > which is valid at both levels (all right, there are some borderline
> > cases because of the difference between 0 and nil).  A change that
> > would be more in line with typechecking modes would be to require a
> > 'public', 'static' or 'private' class specifier for each function.
>
> Not really to disagree, but slightly... typechecking 2 does make a change
> more than 0/nil, it requires varargs to be moved from the function
> declaration to inside the parameters list, to where the first varargs
> variable is to occur.

But varargs in that location will also work with lower typechecking modes.


> It also makes telnet_connect() have to have an 'int
> port' that's not required at typechecking 0.

The argument is supplied in both cases, but in typechecking mode 0,
excess arguments are thrown away.  The typechecked version of the
code still works the same in typechecking mode 0.

Regards,
Dworkin
_________________________________________________________________
List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd