5.2Scope.ppt.pptVIP

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Click to edit Master title style * * * * * * * * Type Checking Type checking ensures that the operands and the operator are of compatible types Generalized to include subprograms and assignments Compatible type is either legal for the operator, or language rules allow it to be converted to a legal type Coercion Automatic conversion Type error Application of an operator to an operand of incorrect type Nearly all type checking can be static for static type bindings Type checking must be dynamic for dynamic type bindings Strong Typing Strongly typed programming language PL where type errors are always detected Advantages: Reliability Detection of the misuses of variables that result in type errors Disadvantages: Increased size of code Slower development - declarations Reduced writability Exception handling may be move complicated Strong Typing in PLs Examples: FORTRAN 77 is not: parameters, EQUIVALENCE Pascal is not: variant records C and C++ are not: parameter type checking can be avoided; unions are not type checked Ada is, almost (UNCHECKED CONVERSION is loophole) Java is similar to Ada Coercion rules affect strong typing can weaken it considerably (C++ versus Ada) Java has just half the assignment coercions of C++ Java’s strong typing is still less effective than in Ada Name Type Compatibility Variables have compatible types if they are either in the same declaration or in declarations that use the same type name Easy to implement but highly restrictive Sub-ranges of integer are not compatible with integer! Formal parameters must be the same type as their corresponding actual parameters (Pascal) Structure Type Compatibility Variables have compatible types if their types have identical structures More flexible But harder to implement Because of structured types Others are much simpler Questions: Structurally the same record types with different field names? Array types with the same base type but different subs