[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.
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.
> --------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
> Dan Sugalski even samurai
> email@example.com have teddy bears and even
> teddy bears get drunk