C strongly typed?
Fred Christianson
flc at n.sp.cs.cmu.edu
Sat Mar 10 01:33:47 AEST 1990
In article <4401 at hydra.Helsinki.FI> grano at cs.Helsinki.FI (Kari Gran|) writes:
>a strictly (strongly? - not well defined terms anyway) typed language.
Here's ONE POSSIBLE definition. I'm not arguing that "strongly typed" is
well defined. I'm just giving one definition.
>From Aho, Sethi and Ullman's _Compilers,_Principles,_Techniques,_and_Tools_:
A language is strongly typed if its compiler can guarantee that
the programs it accepts will execute without type errors ...
For example if we first declare
table: array[0..255] of char;
i: integer
and then compute table[i], a compiler cannot in general guarantee
that during execution, the value of i will lie in the range 0 to 255.
The C equivalent example
char table[256];
int i;
shows that C is not "strongly typed" according to Aho, Sethi, and Ullman.
My other compiler/language books don't even use strong in their discussion
of type checking.
MY OPINION: For any reasonable definition of "strongly typed"
C is not "strongly typed".
----
Fred
p.s. Let's not argue about a reasonable definition for "reasonable".
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list