[TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOP and imperative programming languages

[Benjamin C. Pierce]

Thanks for taking the trouble to point that out, Lindsay!  It's good to be reminded how easy it is for any of us (well, many of us, anyway :-) to slip into unintentionally hurtful or excluding figures of speech.

    - Benjamin

On Apr 22, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Lindsey Kuper <lkuper at cs.indiana.edu> wrote:

> [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
> 
>> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:53:27 +0100
>> From: Dermot McGahon <dmcgahon at gmail.com>
>> To: types-list at lists.seas.upenn.edu
>> Subject: Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible
>>        synthesis of OOP and imperative programming languages
>> Message-ID:
> 
>> Like you, I'm a programming practioner. Who has had an interest in types
>> and PL research for some years now. While it's great that you've woken the
>> distinguished gentlemen up [...]
> 
>>   - I can also recommend that you read more about categorical logic and
>>   domain theory (both mathematical subjects).  As well as the many great
>>   references already mentioned, please do keep them coming gents.  Like Mark,
>>   I will take the time to follow-up and continue to read, read, read.
>> 
>> 
>> Dermot.
> 
> As an aside to an otherwise great discussion: although I'm sure you
> intend no harm by saying things like "keep them coming gents", please
> be aware that not everyone on this mailing list is male, and that
> making blanket assumptions about the gender of subscribers to the list
> may discourage people with worthwhile points to make from
> contributing.
> 
> Lindsey Kuper