New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove Nominal Type #629

Closed
DavePearce opened this Issue Apr 20, 2016 · 4 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
1 participant
@DavePearce
Member

DavePearce commented Apr 20, 2016

The class wyc.lang.Nominal remains rather ugly and should be removed. This will be possible once flow-typing is eliminated from the bytecode #563. That is because at this point, variables will be able to have arbitrary types rather than more specific types as currently required by the various bytecodes themselves.

@DavePearce

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavePearce

DavePearce Jul 18, 2016

Member

There are some hacks in CodeGenerator which switch from the nominal() to raw() component when the former is void. These should be removed.

Member

DavePearce commented Jul 18, 2016

There are some hacks in CodeGenerator which switch from the nominal() to raw() component when the former is void. These should be removed.

@DavePearce DavePearce changed the title from Removing Nominal Type to Remove Nominal Type Aug 13, 2016

@DavePearce

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavePearce

DavePearce Aug 28, 2016

Member
  • Make Nominal.raw() redundant
  • Replace Nominal with just Type
  • Create new hierarchy for Type and place subtyping algos into TypeSystem
  • Update type expansion algorithms to include "sign" to handle floor and ceiling
Member

DavePearce commented Aug 28, 2016

  • Make Nominal.raw() redundant
  • Replace Nominal with just Type
  • Create new hierarchy for Type and place subtyping algos into TypeSystem
  • Update type expansion algorithms to include "sign" to handle floor and ceiling
@DavePearce

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavePearce

DavePearce Sep 1, 2016

Member

As usual, things are more complicated that expected. The main issue is the need to do relatively sophisticated simplification on instances of Type. My solution is turning out to be rather complex, but also rather powerful ...

intersectiontable

Member

DavePearce commented Sep 1, 2016

As usual, things are more complicated that expected. The main issue is the need to do relatively sophisticated simplification on instances of Type. My solution is turning out to be rather complex, but also rather powerful ...

intersectiontable

@DavePearce

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavePearce

DavePearce Sep 10, 2016

Member

So this was (unsurprisingly) a lot more involved than expected. However, overall, this is definitely a big step in the right direction.

Member

DavePearce commented Sep 10, 2016

So this was (unsurprisingly) a lot more involved than expected. However, overall, this is definitely a big step in the right direction.

@DavePearce DavePearce closed this Sep 10, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment