Re: Seeking for papers about tagged types vs access to subprograms

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Fri, 10 May 2013 00:19:14 +0200, Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com>  
a écrit:
> Again, no one said anything about them being isolated. Although I do  
> think
> that vast majority of types ought to be separate from other types -- the
> interactions being handled in the operations, not in the types  
> themselves.

Right, except while you say this, the only static check sub‑programs or  
primitive operations provide, is the one applying on the types of their  
arguments. So there is nothing handled by operations (at least, so far).

The point is still good enough, as at first sight, seems there are  
operations which cannot said to be owned by a single type, so that may  
looks hard to focus on type with this picture. Or else, there is a need  
for a type representing sub‑program signature (something I wanted to reply  
to Dmitry in another message), the arguments tuple, then optionally the  
result tuple, and optionally both tuples, say the type of a transition as  
an example. With this, interactions between types can be represented with  
types.


-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University