Chris Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Assume a language that
>> a) defines that a program is "type-correct" iff HM inference establishes
>> that there are no type errors
>> b) compiles a type-incorrect program anyway, with an establishes
>> rigorous semantics for such programs (e.g. by throwing exceptions as
>> appropriate).
> So the compiler now attempts to prove theorems about the program, but
> once it has done so it uses the results merely to optimize its runtime
> behavior and then throws the results away.
Hmm... here's my compiler front end (for Haskell or other languages
that ..er.. define 'undefined'):
while(type error) {
replace an incorrectly typed function with 'undefined'
}
Wouldn't the resulting program still be statically typed?
In practice I prefer to (and do) define troublesome functions as
'undefined' manually during development.
-k
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
