News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Idris 1.0 by tathougies on Saturday April 01, 2017 @12:09PM (#14012754)
But type inference takes a hit. Trade offs -- conceptually similar but potentially needing more annotation
Re:Idris 1.0 by ziman on Saturday April 01, 2017 @01:51PM (#14013220)
While dependent type inference is more difficult, you get program inference in exchange. That's not a bad tradeoff because I'd rather write the spec (type) and have the computer fill in the boring bits, rather than the other way around.
Re:Idris 1.0 by mrkgnao on Saturday April 01, 2017 @09:07PM (#14015117)
I remember seeing an Edwin Brady talk (it featured a now-possibly-famous Brexit joke) in which the compiler almost inferred ... I think it was either zip or a fold.
Re:Idris 1.0 by Kutta on Saturday April 01, 2017 @05:32PM (#14014293)
I've seen this over and over but it's false. Adding dependent types do not negatively affect type inference for the non-dependent fragment in any shape or form. On the contrary, Agda/Coq type inference is far more powerful than in Haskell. While Agda/Coq do not have let generalization, that is by purely a design decision and not some kind of limitation.
Re:Idris 1.0 by mietek on Saturday April 01, 2017 @01:03PM (#14013018)
Good Haskell style already presupposes top-level type annotations.
Re:Idris 1.0 by bad_user on Sunday April 02, 2017 @04:37AM (#14016432)
Highly generic code yields complicated signatures, so even if it's good style to add those signatures for top level declarations, it's really good to have the compiler help you figure out what that signature is.