Why don't you just put a hole in for the function's type? foo : ? foo = ? Works fine, but you might have to assist the tyinf later
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @raichoo
But the payoff is huge - getting Agda to write your program is very nice :)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @raichoo
Well, you can always read the inferred program before you run it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I tend to use it for boring bits of plumbing. It's not "either programs or types", it's just about having handy tools.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
useful bits of type inference aren't even out of the question, occasionally. I know it's not ready right now but...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
let's have some imagination about where languages and tools might go if we let go of how current tools trade things off
10:59 AM - 17 Jun 2016
1 reply
2 retweets
3 likes
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
it's sounding a bit like you want your dream language and you want it now... I want it too!
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 2 more replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.