From: Kjetil Valstadsve
Subject: Latent/manifest typing contradictions in literature
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Message-ID: <jw4ybdelz7m.fsf@ra.pvv.ntnu.no>

Excerpt from the IEEE Scheme Standard approved December 10, 1990 (also
found in R3RS), section 1.1:
  
  "Scheme has latent as opposed to manifest types. Types are
   associated with values rather than with variables."

Excerpt from the excellent "ANSI Common Lisp" by Paul Graham, section
2.15:

  "In Common Lisp, values have types, not variables. (...) This
   approach is called _manifest typing_."

I can't imagine the terms being used interchangeably as long as
they're opposites. Does anyone have the explanation for what is
apparently a contradiction?

-- 
 ..                                      Kjetil Valstadsve <·····@pvv.org>
                                                http://www.pvv.org/~eddie/

From: Brian Harvey
Subject: Re: Latent/manifest typing contradictions in literature
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Message-ID: <5claht$jdb@agate.berkeley.edu>

Kjetil Valstadsve <·····@ra.pvv.ntnu.no> writes:
>  "Scheme has latent as opposed to manifest types. Types are
>   associated with values rather than with variables."
>...
>  "In Common Lisp, values have types, not variables. (...) This
>   approach is called _manifest typing_."

I don't have an explanation, but fyi, the second edition of SICP
has abandoned the name "manifest type" altogether because of this
confusion -- instead they talk about "tagged data."