[reuben364]

Thinking out aloud here.

One pattern that I have frequently used in EMACS elisp is that redefining a top-level value overwrites that value rather than shadowing it. Basically hot reloading. This doesn't work in a dependently typed context as the type of subsequent definitions can depend on values of earlier definitions.

    def t := string
    def x: t := "asdf"
    redef t := int

redefining t here would cause x to fail to type check. So the only options are to either shadow the variable t, or have redefinitions type-check all terms whose types depend on the value being redefined.

Excluding the type-level debugging they mention, I think a lean style language-server is a better approach. Otherwise you are basically using an append-only ed to edit your environment rather than a vi.

[wk_end]

I've fantasized about some kind of a dependently-typed Smalltalk-like thing before, and in those fantasies the solution would be that changes would be submitted in the form of transactions - they wouldn't be live until you bundled them all together into one big change that would be fully type-checked, as you describe.

[kscarlet]

The only option that you described is called "hyperstatic global environment".

And it is called that for a reason, it is not very dynamic :) and probably too static to the taste of many Lisp and all Smalltalk fans.

[resize2996]

> EMACS elisp

I used this to write the front end for an ATM machine.

[extrabajs]

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

[reuben364]

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.

[extrabajs]

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?