 Type inference a good thing?
started 7/14/2002; 8:12:26 AM - last post 7/18/2002; 1:32:34 PM
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Type inference a good thing? 
7/14/2002; 8:12:26 AM (reads: 661, responses: 4)
|
|
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Type inference a good thing?
7/14/2002; 8:39:24 AM (reads: 671, responses: 0)
|
|
|
When I wrote my Component Libraries and Language Features paper I was of the opinion that type inference should be kept within modules. Module interfaces should by explicit.
Now I think that this approach may be too restrictive. I'd be happy to hear about the experience of others.
|
|
Patrick Logan - Re: Type inference a good thing?
7/14/2002; 7:46:22 PM (reads: 631, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Unfortunately I could only come up with a gut reaction that is not very thoughtful. But it's how I feel, and it has the advantage of being somewhat nostalgic.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that module boundaries should be explicit. The major issue is that TI hurts an open-world compilation model, it is very easy for a type to generalise accidentally because of implementation changes.
Otherwise, I love TI, unlike some others I really feel code becomes more readable without types everywhere.
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Type inference a good thing?
7/18/2002; 1:32:34 PM (reads: 459, responses: 0)
|
|
|
While we are discussing TI...
A student of mine came across some confusing remarks on the Net about the role of type checking in the presence of TI (e.g., in Haskell). I explained the interaction (and sent him to reread EOPL2...) but I was wondering if someone knows of a good/short explanation specifically of this (possibly confusing) point.
|
|
|
|