[Types-sig] Re: Revive the types sig?

[Daniel Wang]

Paul Prescod <paulp@activestate.com> writes:

> Which of the ideas in the paper do you feel are applicable to a system
> with explicitly declared types?
> 
> Thanks for pointers!
> 

Burried behind all that math is a recipe for deciding where to put dynamic
type checks and tagging functions that move your data safely between the
typed and untyped world. It properly handles parameterized types. 

The short list in the intro promises a system that will accept any Scheme
program without modification but run it like an ML program when you use
types in an ML like way. Sounds like what the Python folk would like in
ideal world. 

You might not be interested in doing full inference in which case you can
just "reverse" engineer the system to see where they need to put casts and
tagging operations to make things work. These are exactly the same places a
Python system would have to require programmer annotation. 

Anyway, it's been a while since I read it, but its the most relevant bit of
acadmeic type-theory I know about for this partricular problem.