Hi! Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> writes:
> What I'm thinking of is like racket contracts, but with the idea of > "trusted modules", which might involve static checking. For instance, > if the contract is that map's second parameter is a list, you'd > normally want to check that. But if a module that used map could > guarantee that it would always pass a list as the second argument, > then you'd arrange things so the second module could skip the type > check. In Guile, modules are dynamic by nature: they are assembled at run-time (everything is “dynamically linked”). My feeling is that cross-module static analysis doesn’t fit well in this framework. > I'm curious in general though whether it would be possible and > worthwhile to statically check programmer-defined ideas, as long as > the interface is easy enough to use. For instance, what if you could > ask Guile to check that your tree structure always remained a binary > tree? I think you’ll be interested in dependent types: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dependent_types Though I’d recommend working on JIT for Guile before you get stuck in a meta-circular Curry-Howardish enlightenment period. :-) Thanks, Ludo’.
