Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
thunderseethe.dev | ||
| | | | |
lambdaland.org
|
|
| | | | | All the source for this may be found on my SourceHut repository. Synopsis # Experimental type checker/inferer for a simple lambda calculus Description # This is a type inference system for a little language. (Described below.) It uses a fusion of type inference algorithms from PLAI, ESP, and ?Kanren. (See Resources) Broadly speaking, our type inference engine works by: generating typing constraints from the program solving those constraints Well describe each of those in more detail. | |
| | | | |
sookocheff.com
|
|
| | | | | In a purely functional language - like lambda calculus - programs are expressed as nested function calls. Repetition in such an environment requires that nesting of function calls continues until some condition is met. During the repetition, each function passes its result to the next function in the nested chain and this repetition is completed when a test for some condition passes. The repetitive behaviour I've just described is recursion: | |
| | | | |
boxbase.org
|
|
| | | | | These ideas and thoughts have converged towards type theory, and I remembered familiar patterns so I did a closer study at the Hindley-Milner, to understand it much better than before. | |
| | | | |
dusty.phillips.codes
|
|
| | | In earlier articles, we have implemented a tokenizer, parser, and transformer to convert the Web Assembly Text Format to an Abstract Syntax Tree that can hopefully easily compile to Wasm. Truthfully, the next step should be validation. Validation is the process of statically analyzing the syntax tree to catch as many errors as possible. This is where things like type checking and borrow checking happen, for example. The wasm spec has an in-depth description of what validation should look like for a conforming compiler. | ||
