I'm debating with Shap whether or not it's OK for type inference to sometimes fail for unintelligible reasons. I say yes, Shap says no. My motivation is that getting well-behaved type inference places uncomfortable restrictions on the language design, at least given the current state of the art.
At least that's what I think we're debating. So I don't think anyone has a problem with allowing type annotations wherever you want. On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Raoul Duke <[email protected]> wrote: >>> But the more important issue is that humans can't write static types >>> correctly. In today's systems, the types involved are complex enough that >>> when humans are asked to state them they come up with typings that are not >>> complete. >> >> Are you saying _no one_ will understand the type system well enough to >> write good types? I don't think so. It sounds like you want BitC to be >> useful to people who don't know how to use it. > > i don't understand the point (...either; or possibly just me). for > typed languages with inference i don't think i've ever used one that > outright prevented me from annotating with my own types if i want? and > i am under the impression that furthermore inferencers always go wrong > somewhere so the system much allow humans to interfere. > > even just looking at it the other way around: what if i want to write > my types first and then fill in the details. i think that's a valid > thing and should be supported. or, write code then write types and > then fix my code to fit the types (i've done this, it is similar to > writing the unit test and then fixing the code to just pass the test; > it is a weird-good experience when it works). > > i suspect this is all wooshing way over my head, apologies. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
