<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On 27 Jul 2016, at 7:05, James Noble <<a href="mailto:kjx@ecs.vuw.ac.nz" class="">kjx@ecs.vuw.ac.nz</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">I think I'm proposing that we don't investigate any of the more fancy sound, blame-carrying, etc gradual typing proposals and rather just stick with the<br class="">existing semantcs --- and point people to Thorn if anyone complains. <br class=""><br class="">Declare victory and move on, in other words - in particular to seeing how we can ensure adding more types doesn't make a program slower.<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><div class="">To me, those two things seem to contradict each other. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">My take on gradual typing — coming form the dynamic typing end rather than the static typing end — is that it’s <i class="">all about</i> figuring out how to ensure that adding more types does not slow down the program. I think that Jeremy would say this differently — he’s looking at how to introduce the <i class="">minimal </i>number of type checks when adding type Unknown to an otherwise statically-typed program. But I think that it amounts to the same thing.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Andrew</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>