>It's not a horrible abuse if you aren't trying to make the framework/library statically typed in the first place. Of course it is, because even if there's no

>It's not a horrible abuse if you aren't trying to make the framework/library statically typed in the first place. Of course it is, because even if there's no type system the people using the library still have to make sense of the complexity. A function with a dozen, context-sensitive overloads that accepts data without a clear pattern isn't just hard to type, it's also hard to understand for a user. Even with dynamic typing you should be able to clearly state what a function does.