[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Optional types

 > If you are aiming for static type correctness (i.e. no "message not
 > understood" errors at runtime), you clearly need a type language you
 > can effectively reason about.  One example of expressive but complex
 > type systems is the Flint project at Yale[1].

That system is undecidable, right?