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

Re: Practical fallout from types and type inferencing

Look at the papers on polytypic programming (google is your friend) and
two-level types (Sheard and others at OGI).  The latter appears to be a
practical application of the former.

I use two-level types for writing AOP interpreters, because
	(a) they make code walkers over ast obvious
	(b) they allow me to add decorations like types (stated or
            inferred) to my ast -- and that lets me separate the
	    typechecker into its own module.

Chris Dutchyn

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:

> So, we've had a pretty massive to do over types in general (to the point
> where folks not actually on the list have noticed) which has been
> interesting, in part because there's been some light to go with the heat.
> Let me pose a practical question, as someone who cares more about what
> typing lets me do than any theoretical niftiness:
> Are there any good papers on *implementation* benefits from type checking
> or type inferencing (especially the latter)? I can draw some reasonable
> assumptions on wins I can get from doing things with types, but practical
> papers (or discussion here, that'd be cool) of things to do, not do,
> places to cheat, high and low cost/payback techniques and whatnot'd be
> quite interesting.
> 					Dan
> --------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
> Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
> dan@sidhe.org                         have teddy bears and even
>                                       teddy bears get drunk