Falsifying Existence Of Side Flags

Everything is just a side flag.

The equal sign is a side flag because it flags down things that are supposed to be equal.

Letters in words are side flags because the letters are side by side with other letters.

The period is a side flag because it is beside other words. The side flag "period" ends the sentence. <-- see the dot there? TheEnd

The subtraction and addition operator is a side flag that flags down things which are being added or subtracted.

What is a side flag? Can it be falsified? no.

Please see EmpiricalTypeBehaviorAnalysis. And please don't bring our heated battles onto that page unless it's truly the best page for it.

{EmpiricalTypeBehaviorAnalysis is a good page because it effectively uses type tags as a tool for understanding, without inaccurately trying to claim that "type tags" are types. "Type tags" are thus a model for TypeSystem behaviour in particular languages, but (thankfully!) no claim is made that "type tags" are a model for types in general.}

Well so far, ALL "types are..." statements have had serious problems on this wiki. "Side flags" are a model to understand typing as typically implemented in C-style and Algo-style languages. I withdrew the general "is" long ago. -t

Do you have any experience writing compilers for C and Algol languages? Are you sure that they use flags, and if so, how come there is no information on Google about such flags? Possibly you are using informal terms that no one knows about. The concept of number types doesn't need a person visualizing tags or flags, number types are a very useful thing without tags or flags in the mind. Confusing implementation with the model possibly? Does a kid in math class benefit from being told that number types are like flags or tags? Or would it be better for the kid to understand what types are conceptually instead of how some type system would physically implement a programming detail?

• How about "types are things that ACT LIKE side tags". --top

• That only makes sense if you explain how types act like side tags. I can "side tag" every keyword in a source code corpus. Does that mean I've implemented types?

{I have two objections to the term "side flags": First, a "flag" implies a boolean value (i.e., the flag is raised, or lowered.) Second, it deviates from an actual implementation mechanism used to identify the type associated with a value or variable, commonly called a "type tag". I have no problem with the term "type tag" being used to explain how type checking and operator selection is (or may be) implemented in those languages that actually use them, or that appear to use them. I have a strong objection with any claim of equivalence between either "side flags", or "type tag", and "type".}

"Type tag" caused other problems when I started using it. No version will make everyone happy.

{It caused problems because you insisted on a "type tag" = "type" equivalence, which is false.}

That's not the case I had in mind. But I don't want to argue tag vs. flag for now.