(Sorry if you get this twice, Ertugrul; and if I reply to top. I'm
stuck with the gmail interface and I'm not used to it.)
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Ertugrul Soeylemez
I don't see any problem with this. Although I usually have a bottom-up approach, so I don't do this too often, it doesn't hurt, when I have to.
I do. It's low tech and inconvenient. Whenever I program in Haskell, I miss Agda's editing features, where I can write: foo : Signature foo x y z = ? Then compile the file. The ? stands in for a term of any type, and becomes a 'hole' in my code. The editing environment will then tell me what type of term I have to fill into the hole, and give me information on what is available in the scope. Then I can write: foo x y z = { partialImpl ? ? } and execute another command. The compiler will make sure that 'partialImpl ? ?' has the right type to fill in the hole (with ?s again standing in for terms of arbitrary type). If the type checking goes through, it expands into: foo x y z = partialImpl { } { } and the process repeats until my function is completely written. And of course, let's not forget the command for automatically going from: foo x y z = { x } to foo Con1 y z = { } foo Con2 y z = { } foo Con3 y z = { } ... I don't think there's anything particularly Agda-specific to the above. In fact, the inference required should be easier with Haskell/GHC. Features like this would be pretty killer to have for Haskell development; then I wouldn't have to prototype in Agda. :) -- Dan