Conversation

hey, it's better than us - we never managed to put together a good easily-browseable version of the spec that doesn't need to be read in Scrivener. (though you will find HTML exports in that repo)
1
hmmm, so we think it's in a sense a mistake to have struct types as a primitive in the language. you can build them out of product types, so it doesn't make sense to have both. you can have pre-built structs as a library feature rather than a language feature.
2
1
The issue is that these are 'dependent struct types', so they are more 'dependent sums' than 'product types'. I'm still on the fence as to if I want them to be nominal definitions though.
1
1
I'm also thinking I might want to separate out 'dependent sequence formats' from 'dependent structs' - this might help me with some of the phase problems I was having (mentioned in another tweet).
1
1
You could imagine allowing these format descriptions to live at runtime, say if you wanted to describe formats dynamically, but forcing them to live statically helps me in terms of building a compiler, at this stage!
1
Show replies