### some reflexions...

parent 6f988c52
 ... @@ -16,6 +16,11 @@ ... @@ -16,6 +16,11 @@ \end{array} \end{array} \end{equation} \end{equation} TODO: the then and else expressions of typecases have no associated variable, altough the env refinement rules could refine their types... Is this an issue? Should we require an atomic in the then and else branchs (seems difficult: there would be no equivalent normal form)? TODO: Which restrictions on types? (cannot test a precise arrow type, etc) TODO: Which restrictions on types? (cannot test a precise arrow type, etc) \subsection{Typing rules} \subsection{Typing rules} ... @@ -165,11 +170,10 @@ TODO: Algorithmic rules ... @@ -165,11 +170,10 @@ TODO: Algorithmic rules \end{mathpar} \end{mathpar} TODO: example: application $x y$ with $x$ an union of arrow. Candidates TODO: example: application $x y$ with $x$ an union of arrow. Candidates of a variable with a function type should be all the union of arrows of its type?\\ for $x$ should be all the different union of arrows of its type? More generally, a variable that can be written only has an union should be splitted along this union. Otherwise, $\letexp{x}{\cdots}{x}$ will never be splitted. Or better: TODO: Candidates for a variable should be a special "all splits". there should be a special split that means "all splits" (it will also be useful when Otherwise, $\letexp{x}{\cdots}{x}$ will never be splitted. we will add polymorphism). TODO: test type system with $\lambda x:\pair{\Int}{\Int}\lor\pair{\Bool}{\Bool}. (\pi_1 x, \pi_2 x)$ TODO: test type system with $\lambda x:\pair{\Int}{\Int}\lor\pair{\Bool}{\Bool}. (\pi_1 x, \pi_2 x)$ ... ...
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment