Re: Parameterized sorts for LSL!?


Yes, LSL needs parameterized sorts.  No, I don't know of anyone who has
committed time to design them.  A year or so I designed a "poor man's
version," in which names could have components separated by $, and
components could be substituted separately.  The Achilles Heel of this
proposal is non-confluence (the same sequence of components could come from
two very different sequences of substitutions).  So I concluded that, at a
minimum, there has to be some sort of bracketing, Set[T], rather than
Set$T.  But that's as far as it went at that time, I think.

I didn't understand your remark about parameterized function names: Since
they already contain a full signature (which can often be elided), they are
parameterized by all the types in the signature.  Or were you simply
suggesting that parameterized types be allowed in signatures?  I agree that
the latter would be essential to any useful design for parameterized sorts.

Jim H.