Conversation

Trying to avoid having top level commands in my dependently typed language. It's frustrating that you can't give a type to a signature easily! You need manifest fields or singletons or identity type trickery to make certain definitions public, or else you limit expressiveness. 🤔
2
8
I wonder if you keep a journal of your general thoughts on the tradeoffs incurred in making a language dependently typed? With how the language is evolving and your vision, what do you think of bringing dependent typing onboard?
1
I'm like dependent types - the implications of having them are just a bit tricky! I really like the idea of having first-class specifications. It's just there are many challenges with going down this route that seem like that don't have clear solutions yet.
2
1
Replying to
This is partly why I am thinking of creating a graphic medium first whereby, you can create a graph and then do stuff like linear/partial ordering on it and then morph it into distinct shapes and then add labels on them later. A substrate like to think with is direly missing.
1
Yeah, I might end up experimenting with something similar too. Thinking about how I want doc comments to be part of the program graph (ie. referring to identifiers etc.) kind of suggests thinking about the graph might be useful.
2
Show replies