<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<style type="text/css">body { font-family:'DejaVu Sans Mono'; font-size:12px}</style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:24:20 -0400, Björn-Egil Dahlberg <egil@erlang.org> wrote:<br><br><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0.80ex; border-left: #0000FF 2px solid; padding-left: 1ex">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div><blockquote cite="mid:op.w5rtcxqcvksmfo@shuttle.squirrel" type="cite">
<div>BTW, is there a plan for a type notation for these new maps,
or for how to get Dialyzer to usefully type-check them?</div>
</blockquote>
<br> Yes. The type notation is the same as with other terms.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ya, I just found that and posted a separate e-mail with my analysis. I believe the type signatures to be inconsistently specified.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0.80ex; border-left: #0000FF 2px solid; padding-left: 1ex">How well
Dialyzer would be able to handle it is a different matter. I plan to
make them really stupid at first, meaning opaque map(). Later
incarnations of dialyzer could be increasingly smarter.<br></blockquote><br><div>I think it will be very difficult for Dialyzer to automatically tease apart the homogeneous (list-like) and heterogeneous (tuple-like) use cases, even if they are not mixed. In particular, as I mentioned in my other e-mail, the useful type variance in the heterogeneous use case is the opposite of the useful type variance in the homogeneous case. (i.e., we want to know that a heterogeneous map contains *at least* some keys; we want to know that a homogeneous map contains *at most* some keys).</div><div><br></div><div>Maybe I am wrong – I hope I am – but without a plan and without the hetero-homogeneous distinction, I fear "later" could be "never".</div></body></html>