Skip to content

Conversation

@effectfully
Copy link
Contributor

@effectfully effectfully commented Oct 3, 2018

This fixes another bunch of bugs in the type checker which finally allows us to type check the standard library.

It also showcases how we should comment each of the cases:

    -- G |- term : nTermTy, ty ~>* nTy, [fix n nTy / n] nTy ~>* nTermTy', nTermTy ~ nTermTy'
    -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -- G |- wrap n ty term : fix n nTy

I'll write more on that on the mailing list, but hey, we can type check the standard library.

@effectfully effectfully requested review from mchakravarty and vmchale and removed request for vmchale October 3, 2018 18:32
@vmchale
Copy link
Contributor

vmchale commented Oct 3, 2018

This will be superseded by the new elimination contexts, yes?

@effectfully
Copy link
Contributor Author

effectfully commented Oct 3, 2018

Elimination contexts shouldn't throw this away and should instead adapt the rule and the implementation.

@effectfully effectfully merged commit f8b0991 into IntersectMBO:master Oct 3, 2018
@effectfully effectfully deleted the effectfully/fix-typechecker-wrap branch October 3, 2018 19:30
@vmchale
Copy link
Contributor

vmchale commented Oct 3, 2018

In that case, we should update the spec as well, yes?

@effectfully
Copy link
Contributor Author

The spec is not of algorithmic nature while the code obviously is. I don't know whether the spec should be updated or not.

@vmchale
Copy link
Contributor

vmchale commented Oct 3, 2018

This changes the places we do reductions, yes? That is different from the old spec.

@mchakravarty
Copy link
Contributor

The spec really needs two versions of the type synthesis: (1) a declarative one that may not be explicit about where reductions happen and (2) an algorithmic one that is explicit about it. This is what we did agree on during the meeting. I hope @psygnisfive will have a chance to add this to the spec soon.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants