额外的数据类型检查代码是不必要的。
它不会再编译时做类型检查。
jamc实现不执行完整的程序类型检查。
Note that the jamc implementation does not perform a complete type check of a program.
很明显，类型检查并不足以证明代码的正确性。
It's clear that type checking isn't enough to prove that your code is correct.
模板可以被看作是有类型检查功能的宏。
首先，范围使我们增加了静态类型检查功能。
First of all, the bounds give us added static type checking.
毕竟静态类型检查主要是严格防止那种异常。
After all, the whole point of static type checking is to prevent exactly that sort of exception.
静态类型检查会防止把非string对象传递给这个方法。
Static type checking will prevent non-Strings from being passed to this method.
然后，编译器可以根据age属性声明的类型实施类型检查。
The compiler can then enforce type checking based on the declared type of the attribute named age.
他关注的领域还有通过语义形式和类型检查对安全性协议进行验证。
He is also concerned with the verification of security protocols through semantic formalisms and type checking.
编译器的类型检查规则与API签名结合确定什么是合法输入。
The compiler's type-checking rules coupled with the API's signature govern what constitutes legitimate input.
您可以依赖add方法内部的类型检查，但这并不优雅而且不固定。
You could fall back on type checking inside the add method, but that is not elegant and inflexible.
每次创建支持export的新类型时，就需要创建一个新类型检查。
Every time you created a new type that supported export , you would need to create a new type check.
这既给予了动态类型的表达能力又保留了静态类型检查的安全。
This gives the expressiveness of duck-typing with the safety of static type-checking.
简单的例子比如典型的名称唯一性约束、类型检查或非空检查。
Simple examples include the typical name-uniqueness constraints, type checks or non-nullness.
我爱Lisp，但是Lisp当然，是属于在类型检查比较弱的语言一类。
I love Lisp, but Lisp is certainly in the category of a very weakly typed language.
但是，如果使用PHPV5 的话，可以将对象类型检查构建到类或方法声明中。
With PHP V5, however, you can build object type checking right into the class or method declaration.
我想强调的第二件事情是，这里发生的是，是Python做了一些类型检查的工作。
The second thing I want to highlight is, that what's going on, is that Python is doing some type checking.
它进行静态类型检查，并且不允许强制类型转换，因而对于类型而言是安全的。
It is statically type-checked and does not allow type coercion, so is safe with regards to types.
DebasishGhosh提倡使用这种解决方法，而不是试图实现动态类型检查。
Debasish Ghosh advocates for using this kind of solutions rather than trying to achieve dynamic type checking.
准则1可以通过类型检查得到保证，如果在函数中有任何静态存储声明，则抛出错误消息。
Guideline 1 can be ensured by type checking and throwing an error message if there is any static storage declaration in the function.
实际上，在类型检查的下面，不同的语言会对应着，从弱到强的一个定型范围。
And in fact, under type checking, different languages sometimes fall on a spectrum from weak to strong typing.
在组装时就需要进行选择，是覆盖常用类型检查，还是在不同类型的属性和行为之间创建连接。
You now have the choice, at assembly time, to override the usual type checking and create a wire between a property and an action of different types.
虽然付出了这一点成本，但可以得到非常好的性能，编译时类型检查，以及一个非常高级的语言。
For the trouble, you get rock-solid performance, compile-time type checking, and a very high-level language.
例如，在Jam中，禁止程序员将this作为参数传递给方法；无法对这样的调用进行类型检查。
For example, in Jam, the programmer is not allowed to pass this as an argument to a method; there is no way to type check such calls.
而且请注意，类型检查器甚至不能检查是否每个mixin实例化都会产生有效的超级构造函数调用。
Also notice that the type checker can't even check that every instantiation of a mixin will result in valid super-constructor calls.
当使用枚举时，建议使用新的固定的基本类型规范，因为它具有更强的类型检查和代码完成。
When using enums, it is recommended to use the new fixed underlying type specification because it has stronger type checking and code completion.
Scala甚至使得把null作为第二个参数传给构造函数变得很困难；它不会再编译时做类型检查。
Scala even makes it difficult to pass null as the second parameter to the constructor; it won't type check when you compile it.
因为mixin的父类可能用类型参数被实例化，因此类型检查器就不能确定意外方法覆盖的所有情况。
Because a mixin's parent may be instantiated with a type parameter, there is no way for the type checker to determine all cases of accidental method overriding.
如果想要具有静态类型检查的语言，那么的确需要从一开始就把它设计到语言中：它极大地影响着语言的设计。
If you want a language with static type-checking, you really need to design it in from the start: it drastically affects the design of the language.
应用推荐