I’m struggling to even make things work at the moment; inefficiency would be a nice problem to have, from that perspective ^_^;;
Conversation
Yeah, well... I guess I have ideas how to make it work but that might not work in reality ; _ ;
just hate how positional all the currying and pairing stuff is - as much as it's nice in some cases then stuff lines up properly
1
1
I had this weird (probably bad) idea to have records with 'abstract' fields that you could make concrete later - which would end up kind of being like functions? And you'd be able to have a 'default' field that your record would reduce to if all the fields were concrete.
2
1
Records with abstract fields are kind of like functions. But there would be sugar on top to make it look more familiar. Hoping this might help with the issues around bundled and unbundled modules: alhassy.github.io/next-700-modul - but I dunno.
1
1
So you'd have:
{
?A : Type,
op : [A, A] -> A,
}
Which could be sugar for:
{
?A : Type,
op : { ?0 : A, ?1 : A, default : A },
}
1
1
And then something like this maybe:
{
add-int-magma : Magma.{A = Int} = {
op = [x, y] => x + y,
},
test-add-int : Int = add-int-magma.op.[1, 3],
}
2
1
This:
add-int-magma.op.[1, 3]
would elaborate to:
add-int-magma.op.{0 = 1, 1 = 3}.default
2
1
But this might break a bunch of nice stuff in the type system and might be a really ✨Bad✨ idea. 😅
2
2
Like I think generally it's considered good to have nice categorical models of your type systems, and alterations like this might break a bunch of that stuff? Or at least be a rather ad-hoc extension? All the category theory stuff is a bit mysterious to me though. 😰
yeah, I can usually make *some* headway on a sequent calculus judgement, but once the category theory’s out I might as well just drink
2
2
Heh, don't know much about the sequent calculus - have only really messed around with natural deduction. Takes a long time to get my head around the judgements though - especially if they aren't presented in a syntax-directed style.
1
Show replies