On Wednesday 10 October 2001 06:59 pm, you wrote:
> Daniel Joyce wrote:
> > ...
> >         Course, in Java, interfaces were really created to get around the
> > strong typing of the Language, but they also allow spreading common
> > messages across classes. Smalltalk has no typing.
>
> Be careful on your terminology here... Java has static typing (not strong),
> and Smalltalk has dynamic typing (not none).  (Flamefests have erupted on
> comp.lang.smalltalk in the past over this.)
>
> For a language to truly have no typing, that would mean that you would not
> be able to determine the type of an object at compile time, nor at run
> time.
>	Oops, you are correct, Sometimes my mind races ahead of my intellect... <:)