[Types-sig] Viper Type specification

[Greg Stein]

On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, skaller wrote:
>...
> I'm not saying this is 'the' solution, but it ought to
> be considered because it simultaneously provides a 
> powerful typing model, which is based on the existing
> model with only a small generalisation, seems easy
> to implement, and also solves the problem of how to name types.
> 
> I hope it is clear now, why it is relevant.

Now it is clear, yes. But when it just gets posted with "here is X" rather
than "this is how Y could be done", then it is definitely unclear.

> BTW: w.r.t expr!type, your (Greg's) proposal, what precedence
> would your give operator ! ?

Lowest possible (as seen in the type-proposal.html I recently posted
here). I don't have any actual experience with it, but I would think that
when somebody is using it to annotate/verify their code, they would just
append it to the end of key lines in a function. The lowest precedence
creates the correct binding in this case.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/