Re: [stack] Cat Type Inference

Christopher Diggins <[email protected]> wrote:
> William Tanksley, Jr <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Your answer was better than mine, but I did have one little tidbit I
> > think it worthy: a program that must be type-inferenced must be
> > written in a predictable manner: the compiler has to be able to figure
> > it out easily. This makes it generally easier to analyze even for
> > humans.

> When you say "predictable" I am assuming you are referring programs
> with straightforward or simple types, and not to the set of well-typed
> programs in general.

No, I'm referring to programs with static, balanced stack effects.

> It'll remain to be seen how sophisticated the Cat inference engine
> turns out to be in practice once the current version is completed. I
> am confident however (based on the performance of the earlier
> prototype) that Cat will be able to handle inferring the type of
> complex edge-case programs with ease. This is due mainly because of
> the simplicity of the type system of Cat compared to other languages.

In spite of what I said, I do agree that more power is better than
less. So go for it!

While you're at it: can you build me a type inferencer that will
distinguish the set of functions that terminate from the set of ones
that don't? ;-)

> Christopher

-Billy