I know nothing about theoretical computer science, but I was wondering
if it possible to forget about types, and just keep the concept of data
constructors, and have an analyzer determine correctness of the code and
staticness of the data?
Basically this is what SCHEME does no? Doesn't SCHEME
bf3:
I know nothing about theoretical computer science, but I was wondering
if it possible to forget about types, and just keep the concept of data
constructors, and have an analyzer determine correctness of the code and
staticness of the data?
The analysis would be type inference and
hi,
i have thought about things like that, but the qualification
Type.Constructor does
not seem particularly useful. you can achieve the same by using _, e.g
data A = A_X | A_Y
data B = B_X | B_Y
alternatively (at least for non-recursilve datatypes) anonymous sums
(ala TREX's records)
could
I keep running into annoyance in having to name data constructors
differently if they're for different types if they're in the same module
or something. I wish that something like some Type.Constructor syntax
worked in order to disambiguate. Or, better still, I have that problem
with function
At 12:25 PM -0400 4/25/04, Mark Carroll wrote:
I keep running into annoyance in having to name data constructors
differently if they're for different types if they're in the same module
or something. I wish that something like some Type.Constructor syntax
worked in order to disambiguate. Or,
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Scott Turner wrote:
(snip)
Must function concepts such as 'union' can be made into type classes, to the
extent that the concept can be described in the type system.
(snip)
Unfortunately, you still need the different names when you make the
instances, and you can't do things
