On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Brandon Moore <brandon_m_mo...@yahoo.com>wrote: > > > Typechecking with regular types isn't hard.
So do I have the right idea then? To check against a signature, I can just unify the two types and then check if the unified type is 'equivalent' (is there a special word for this kind of equivalence?) to the original signature? I've gotten the impression from multiple people that type checking with infinite types is hard. Maybe this isn't so? > The problem is, the type system > is almost useless for catching bad programs. Every closed lambda expression > is typeable if infinite types are allowed. > Yes, this part I understand quite well :) Usually systems add some sort of ad-hoc restriction on regular types, like requiring that all all cycles > pas through a record type. Yeah, what I really want is just a better ad-hoc restriction or annotation. I quite routinely work with code that would be much more simple and elegant with infinite types. - Job
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
