On 28/07/2009, at 6:41 AM, John Dorsey wrote:
I'm assuming that name resolution is currently independent of type
inference, and will happen before type inference. With the proposal
this is
no longer true, and in general some partial type inference will have
to
happen before conflicting unqualified names are resolved.
My worry is that the proposal will require a compliant compiler to
interweave name resolution and type inference iteratively.
To my untrained eye it looks complicated and invasive, even without
the
mutually recursive case. Can anyone shed light on whether this
would be a
problem for, say, GHC?
My experimental compiler DDC [1] implements TDNR almost exactly as
given on the Haskell' wiki.
Yes, you have to interweave name resolution with type inference,
because there is no way to compute the binding dependency graph/call
graph before type inference proper. This is discussed in section 3.5
of my thesis [2] (which is currently under examination). For DDC I
used a constraint based inference algorithm to compute the binding
dependency graph "on the fly", but I don't know how easy it would be
to retrofit this method into GHC.
Cheers,
Ben.
[1] http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/DDC
[2]
http://cs.anu.edu.au/people/Ben.Lippmeier/project/thesis/thesis-lippmeier-sub.pdf
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
