Talk:Nominal type system
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Nbarth in topic Nominative? and type-safety
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nominal type system article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Nominative? and type-safety edit
Where does the term "nominative type system" come from? I've heard this called a "nominal type system", but "nominative" is not something I've seen.
I'd like to see the source for this statement "and is considered to have better type-safety than structural typing". Although I would agree that given distinct names to the same structural type improves code readability and encourages self-documented code; nominal subtyping in the style of OO is known to have serious flaws Inheritance is not subtyping Carlosayam (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Good point about naming; “nominal” is more common than “nominative”, and gives a clearer constrast with “structural”, so I’ve moved the page.
- I think the use of “nominative” is from Nominative And Structural Typing at C2.
- —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)