Subject: Re: type safety in LISP From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 08 Dec 2002 22:37:32 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Pascal Costanza | However, there are counter examples. A counter-example is an example of something quite different than what has been claimed, intending to refute the claims. However, I made no claims about Haskell, nor any claims to universality that can be shot down with a simple counter-example. I do know enough about logic to avoid that kind of stupid traps, and so should you. You have shown an /additional/ piece of information, namely that static typing can be done better than the languages that were under discussion in this case. Someone who reads about C# and asks some questions about type-safety is unlikely to have the prerequisites to understand what Haskell is, as well as being completely unable to enter a context where it makes sense to talk about that language. -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.