Excerpts from Jerzy Karczmarczuk's message of 2018-08-06 19:31:50 +0200: > Why "not nice"? There is no [assembly] code generated for such zombies, > so why the typechecker should waste time? I think that - at least > "philosophically" (sorry for the abuse of the word) this is coherent > with laziness. In these contexts the execution errors won't manifest > themselves, so why the type errors should?
Hi Jerzy, I understand your reasoning, and from the perspective of the compiler, I agree. From the perspective of the programmer, there are two reasons why I personally would like to see those type errors. Firstly, when developing source code, I often write helper functions before using them. Code does not suddenly exist in its finished form, but there is a process of creating it. Type errors for dead code are useful in the process. Secondly, it would be consistent with top-level function definitions. Those are type checked, even if they are not used. Either way is fine, the programmer just needs to be aware of it. Best regards, Markus _______________________________________________ clean-list mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/clean-list
