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

Add `check` command #64

Closed
ollef opened this Issue Dec 2, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@ollef
Owner

ollef commented Dec 2, 2017

Add a sixten check command to the command-line interface that runs the typechecker but doesn't go further, which will be faster than using compile when you just want to see if something typechecks.

@brandonhamilton

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@brandonhamilton

brandonhamilton Dec 6, 2017

Contributor

I'm interested in building this and have a question on what the preferable implementation of this feature should be:

  • Should it return after running the only the frontend on each module, which would require additional options passed through and changes to be made to the Processor.Files module.

  • Or, run the full frontend and backend processing and then return before writing the modules out to disk and running llvm. This would need only a minor change to the processor, but would be doing more work.

I would assume the first option, but just wanted to check before submitting the implementation.

Contributor

brandonhamilton commented Dec 6, 2017

I'm interested in building this and have a question on what the preferable implementation of this feature should be:

  • Should it return after running the only the frontend on each module, which would require additional options passed through and changes to be made to the Processor.Files module.

  • Or, run the full frontend and backend processing and then return before writing the modules out to disk and running llvm. This would need only a minor change to the processor, but would be doing more work.

I would assume the first option, but just wanted to check before submitting the implementation.

@ollef

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ollef

ollef Dec 6, 2017

Owner

Yeah, the first option is what I had in mind.

I'll have a look at your PR now.

Owner

ollef commented Dec 6, 2017

Yeah, the first option is what I had in mind.

I'll have a look at your PR now.

@ollef ollef closed this in #75 Dec 6, 2017

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