Re: [Ur] Tooling: type of an expression

[Adam Chlipala]

Well, you could take advantage of the type-inference daemon and run a 
new compilation job with your extra expression added to the build.


On 10/11/2018 02:56 AM, Simon Van Casteren wrote:
I think that would get me to the first level: getting types of 
identifiers. Do you see any way to evaluate expressions and getting 
the types of those?


This is something that would definitely be worth it for me, so I'll be 
implementing it unless I can't figure it out :).


Simon

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 5:20 AM Adam Chlipala > wrote:


I'm sure it's more than just remotely possible and is just a
question of
someone getting hands dirty and writing the code!  The baseline of a
whole-program compiler could make it trickier than for many other
toolsets, but it could work to periodically run "compiles" through
type
inference, saving the results to hidden files.

On 10/10/2018 08:22 PM, Simon Van Casteren wrote:
> Urweb tooling is pretty limited compared to other languages. I knew
> that when I started with it and so far I'm OK with it. Honestly,
most
> of the "modern" tooling I see in other ecosystems is a waste of
time.
>
> However, the one thing that would really cut dev time in half
for me
> in Ur/web (slightly exaggerated for effect) would be being able to
> have the compiler tell me the type of an expression. You can go
> multiple levels deep here:
>
> - type of an identifier
> - type of an expression at top level
> - type of an expression in function definition, let-binding, etc
>
> I'm sending this email to the mailing list to ask if something like
> this is remotely possible, what kind of approach we can take and
how
> we could go about implementing it.
>
> Any help much appreciated

___
Ur mailing list
Ur@impredicative.com
http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur

Re: [Ur] Tooling: type of an expression

[Simon Van Casteren]

I think that would get me to the first level: getting types of identifiers.
Do you see any way to evaluate expressions and getting the types of those?

This is something that would definitely be worth it for me, so I'll be
implementing it unless I can't figure it out :).

Simon

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 5:20 AM Adam Chlipala  wrote:

> I'm sure it's more than just remotely possible and is just a question of
> someone getting hands dirty and writing the code!  The baseline of a
> whole-program compiler could make it trickier than for many other
> toolsets, but it could work to periodically run "compiles" through type
> inference, saving the results to hidden files.
>
> On 10/10/2018 08:22 PM, Simon Van Casteren wrote:
> > Urweb tooling is pretty limited compared to other languages. I knew
> > that when I started with it and so far I'm OK with it. Honestly, most
> > of the "modern" tooling I see in other ecosystems is a waste of time.
> >
> > However, the one thing that would really cut dev time in half for me
> > in Ur/web (slightly exaggerated for effect) would be being able to
> > have the compiler tell me the type of an expression. You can go
> > multiple levels deep here:
> >
> > - type of an identifier
> > - type of an expression at top level
> > - type of an expression in function definition, let-binding, etc
> >
> > I'm sending this email to the mailing list to ask if something like
> > this is remotely possible, what kind of approach we can take and how
> > we could go about implementing it.
> >
> > Any help much appreciated
>
> ___
> Ur mailing list
> Ur@impredicative.com
> http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
>
___
Ur mailing list
Ur@impredicative.com
http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur