> This is actually a fairly fundamental fact about static typing.
If you have a complete type system. But as we are specifically talking about partial type systems, you have to already cover all your bases for where the type system is lacking, and by virtue of that you are going to overlap with what the type system also covers.
> It's not stupid if you have a static typing system available!
There is no reason for it, static type system or not.
Complete, not Turing complete. How on earth did you manage to add an entire new meaning into the discussion that wasn't there before? I'm getting flashbacks of the earlier comment that started randomly going off on some weird tangent about how tests don't catch all bugs.
Anything to avoid the actual topic at hand, I guess?
Comments
> This is actually a fairly fundamental fact about static typing.
If you have a complete type system. But as we are specifically talking about partial type systems, you have to already cover all your bases for where the type system is lacking, and by virtue of that you are going to overlap with what the type system also covers.
> It's not stupid if you have a static typing system available!
There is no reason for it, static type system or not.
Nope. You don't need a Turing complete type system.
Complete, not Turing complete. How on earth did you manage to add an entire new meaning into the discussion that wasn't there before? I'm getting flashbacks of the earlier comment that started randomly going off on some weird tangent about how tests don't catch all bugs.
Anything to avoid the actual topic at hand, I guess?