> I made both comments! Ha! I did not notice! XP > I suppose the whole point of a static type system is moot with a fully prototype-based language. Instead ma

> I made both comments! Ha! I did not notice! XP > I suppose the whole point of a static type system is moot with a fully prototype-based language. Instead maybe you can enforce compile-time checks (contracts?) on the messages an object is expected to receive. I think if you can do the latter, you can probably do the former. By that I mean you can probably do neither. If cloning is something you do in runtime, how can you enforce compile-time checks on the messages they're supposed to receive? Such messages are defined at runtime.