Hacker News Reader

Comment by extrabajs | Hacker News Reader

I don’t see the connection to dependent types. But anyway, is ‘redef’ part of your language? What type would you give it?

View on HN

I just wrote redef to emphasize that I'm not shadowing the original definition.

    def a := 1
    def f x := a * x
    -- at this point f 1 evaluates to 1
    redef a := 2
    -- at this point f 1 evaluates to 2

But with dependent types, types can depend on prior values (in the previous example the type of x depends on the value t in the most direct way possible, as the type of x is t). If you redefine values, the subsequent definitions may not type-check anymore.

I see what you mean. But would you not experience the same sort of issue simply from redefining types in the same way? It seems this kind of destructive operation (whether on types or terms) is the issue. As someone who's used to ML, it seems strange to allow this kind of thing (instead of simply shadowing), but maybe it's a Lisp thing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com