Re: Static type-checking with dynamic scoping

Brian R. Murphy <brm@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Thu, 17 Jan 91 15:15:18 -0800

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Static type-checking with dynamic scoping roberto@cernvax.cern.ch (1991-01-14)
Static type-checking with dynamic scoping gateley@rice.edu (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 barmar@think.com (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 mac@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (1991-01-21)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: Brian R. Murphy <brm@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Keywords: types, design, Lisp, ML
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
References: <1191Jan16.185311.3771@Think.COM>
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?


-Brian
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.