|Static type-checking with dynamic scoping firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-01-14)|
|Static type-checking with dynamic scoping email@example.com (1991-01-15)|
|Re: Static type-checking with dynamic scoping Chuck_Lins.SIAC_QMAIL@gateway.qm.apple.com (Chuck Lins) (1991-01-15)|
|Re: Static type-checking with dynamic scoping brm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Brian R. Murphy) (1991-01-15)|
|Re: Static type-checking with dynamic scoping firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-01-16)|
|Re: Static type-checking with dynamic scoping brm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Brian R. Murphy) (1991-01-17)|
|Re: Static type-checking with dynamic scoping email@example.com (1991-01-21)|
|From:||Brian R. Murphy <brm@Neon.Stanford.EDU>|
|Keywords:||types, design, Lisp, ML|
|Organization:||Computer Science Department, Stanford University|
|Date:||Thu, 17 Jan 91 15:15:18 -0800|
> Does this work even when side-effects to dynamically-bound variables are
> allowed, e.g.
This should be closely related to how ML would handle side-effects to
variables. I'm not really sure how this happens (haven't done type
inference for non-functional languages).
The problems of type inference for Lisp are actually quite a bit more
complex. You could probably do something like what Alex Aiken and I
did for FL (described pretty abstractly in our POPL paper which will
be presented next week, Type Inference in a Typeless Language, in more
detail in my 1990 MIT MS thesis). The mechanism we used should be
fairly easily extensible to variable side-effecting, but would suffer
from terrible performance problems without further improvements.
Does anyone know a reference for how ML handles side-effects to variables?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.