• John@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    @Windex007 @snowe

    Yes. Type-inference typically *knows better than me* what the types should be.

    I frequently ask the compiler what code I need to write next by leaving a gap in my implementation and letting the compiler spit out the type of the missing section.

      • John@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        @Windex007

        lexer :: Parser LexState (Vector Int, Vector Token)
        lexer = do
        (positions, tokens) <- _ nextPositionedToken

        What goes where the underscore is in the above snippet?

        • Windex007@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’ve never used Haskell, so I can barely read this as-is.

          But sure: I have no idea, and I expect that’s your point.

          You as the writer, you don’t know either? What if I could understand Haskell, is there an option to communicate that information to me? Or is the argument that nobody but the compiler and god need know? That having an awareness of the types has no value?

          • John@mastodon.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            @Windex007
            > You as the writer, you don’t know either?
            Not until the compiler tells me.

            > Or is the argument that nobody but the compiler and god need know? That having an awareness of the types has no value?
            No, I want to know, because knowing the types has value. If the compiler has inference, it can tell me, if not, it can’t.