Hi, great, I have someone with the same interest.  My idea is simple:

1) First, we all love Ruby, right?  So there must always be untyped
variable like in the current Ruby, so we can simply write

    a = 10

2) Now, all those class names (at least the built-in classes) will also be
keywords in declaring variables:

    Fixnum a
    a = 10    # fine
    a = 'abc' # --> run time syntax error
    b = 'abc' # fine, b is "untyped"

All the Ruby internal object models stay the same.  Only the
parser/interpreter will have to work harder in keeping the type of each   
variable and checking when assignment is being made.

Of course, we can later decide whether the checking is based on
"instance_of?" or "kind_of?" or even a mix of the two; but that is
secondary.

Regards,

Bill
==========================================================================
Rich Kilmer <rich / infoether.com> wrote:
> Well, I would like the idea of optional typing in one instance...to
> publish a WSDL file for a Ruby class (as a web service) you need the
> types of the parameters...in other words, if Ruby is going to be used as
> a producer of WSDL/SOAP web services, types are needed to allow it to
> interact with all those statically-typed languages.  So, if Matz is
> going to add some sort of type 'hinting' it would be nice to access it
> through reflection...somehow ;-)

> -rich

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Djaja Tjokroaminata [mailto:billtj / z.glue.umd.edu] 
>> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 3:57 PM
>> To: ruby-talk ML
>> Subject: Re: adding overload to ruby
>> 
>> 
>> Why not designing a new language with a mix of typed variable 
>> and untyped data?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Bill