From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: The progress of hacking guile and prolog Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:26:48 +0100 Message-ID: <87wro1w0vb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <201010212223.23822.stefan.itampe@gmail.com> <87bp66q8g5.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1290720445 13363 80.91.229.12 (25 Nov 2010 21:27:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 21:27:25 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 25 22:27:20 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PLjLa-0003Jq-CG for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:27:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39506 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PLjLZ-00030Y-SF for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:27:17 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46523 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PLjLT-00030H-Vw for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:27:12 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLjLT-0000Ug-1Q for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:27:11 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:50238) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLjLS-0000UM-O5 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:27:10 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PLjLR-0003FI-Vw for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:27:10 +0100 Original-Received: from yoda.fdn.fr ([80.67.169.18]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:27:09 +0100 Original-Received: from ludo by yoda.fdn.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:27:09 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 31 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: yoda.fdn.fr X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 5 Frimaire an 219 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:03FXmc88e9VdzOMMpUWRvPYwjDg= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:11202 Archived-At: Hi! Noah Lavine writes: > What I'm thinking of is like racket contracts, but with the idea of > "trusted modules", which might involve static checking. For instance, > if the contract is that map's second parameter is a list, you'd > normally want to check that. But if a module that used map could > guarantee that it would always pass a list as the second argument, > then you'd arrange things so the second module could skip the type > check. In Guile, modules are dynamic by nature: they are assembled at run-time (everything is “dynamically linked”). My feeling is that cross-module static analysis doesn’t fit well in this framework. > I'm curious in general though whether it would be possible and > worthwhile to statically check programmer-defined ideas, as long as > the interface is easy enough to use. For instance, what if you could > ask Guile to check that your tree structure always remained a binary > tree? I think you’ll be interested in dependent types: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dependent_types Though I’d recommend working on JIT for Guile before you get stuck in a meta-circular Curry-Howardish enlightenment period. :-) Thanks, Ludo’.