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

[Benjamin C. Pierce]

(… and sorry for mis-typing your name in the process of thanking you!)

On Apr 22, 2013, at 1:51 PM, "Benjamin C. Pierce" <bcpierce at cis.upenn.edu> wrote:

> [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
> 
> 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
>