If I had it my way (tuples and non-primitive return types) there'd be no need for side effects, but alas...
Conversation
(I don't have anywhere near enough time to implement these 🤣)
1
ugh - I feel you
1
1
Deadline is tomorrow evening. I think I shall have to accept that closures, tuples, and ADTs aren't gonna make the cut
1
but, but, what about dependent types, ; ____ ;
1
good luck implementing recursive types without a heap, that's why I gave up
1
1
ack, yeah that is terrifying - need to know the size somehow
1
kind of cool problem though! kind of would be cool to have something like that in pikelet… just not when it's due tomorrow 😢
1
1
is it even possible?
1
It would be cool if you could inductively define fixed size slices perhaps. If you had unboxed types you'd need to know it was finite - which potentially is ok if you are in a total language? Figuring out if you can lay it out inside the stack size might be trickier though.
2
1
I think the Gibbon compiler might be able to do something like this? I dunno.
Btw gibbon is cool and they have interesting papers on it if you want something to distract you from your impending deadline
1
fortunately I finished the actual requirements a couple days ago, this is just me showing off by now -- but thanks! I'll have to have a look
2