3 ms·
Strictly speaking, I think almost no extant languages, and certainly no mainstream ones, use pure HM, but many take it as a starting point. Certainly, HM has no
by thinkpad20 12y ago
Strictly speaking, I think almost no extant languages, and certainly no mainstream ones, use pure HM, but many take it as a starting point. Certainly, HM has no notion of ML modules, or type classes, or record types, or lifetimes. Nevertheless many languages using those things use HM as a starting point.
I'm curious (and a bit skeptical) of your claim that the scheme is "drastically simpler" than HM. HM is a beautifully simple design, which can be expressed (abstractly) in just a couple of lines.
- kibwen 12y agoI'm paraphrasing Niko Matsakis, Rust's type guru. http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2014/07/09/an-experimental-new-type-inference-scheme-for-rust/ http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2014/07/09/an-e... "This scheme simplifies the code of the type inferencer dramatically and (I think) helps to meet our intutions (as I will explain). It is however somewhat less flexible than the existing inference scheme, though all of rustc and all the libraries compile without any changes."