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 <ad...@csail.mit.edu
<mailto:ad...@csail.mit.edu>> 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
