🚀 go-pugleaf

In article  <STEPHEN.92Apr13034706@estragon.uchicago.edu> Stephen P Spackman writes:
]
]Nononono! If this were an accurate description, then the type would be
]stored in a field (possibly optimisaed away!) whose type was described
]by a field of type ? and value "type", whose type is described by a
]field of type ?? and value ?, whose type is described by a field of
]type ??? and value ??, whose....
]
]So you have to do an INFINITE amount of optimisation to get a finite
]programme.

In the first place, the idea of the type of types can be made sound
and usable, it does not require any infinite work.  In the second
place, you have to distinguish between the abstraction and the
implementation.  Abstractly, you don't "store" the type anywhere, it
is just a function of the value.  Implementationally, the type may be
stored in a field, but then it is just an unsigned int, and recursive
types don't come into it.
-- 
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman