There *is* such an example: take a look at how the markup template engine is implemented. It also uses a binding, and provides type information through type checking extensions. It's not the simplest example ever, though.
2016-02-04 14:29 GMT+01:00 Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]>: > > > On 04.02.2016 11:18, Anton Sarov wrote: > [...] > >> 2) I try to compile "A" and provide some binding to the >> GroovyShell/GroovyClassLoader/etc. - I would expect that the binding >> "takes the role" of the type checker extension. So that the compiler >> would say "Oh, look, there is a variable whose type I do not know, but I >> have it here in the binding, so I will use this one". >> >> I still do not get why this is not feasible. And that was my question in >> the previous post - is it so, that the compiler ignores the binding. >> Should I think of the binding as something only "runtime-like". >> > > the compiler has no idea about what is in the binding. In other words, > that link is missing. As of how to provide that link... no idea actually. > The architecture isolates the compiler quite a lot from all kinds of > runtime data like a binding normally. Even with extensions, you normally do > not target actual runtime data, but an abstraction of that provided in a > way known to the extension. > > bye Jochen >
