So to make sure I'm understanding correctly, you want to create your own statically typed scripting language for your game engine? Implementing your own statically-typed language is definitely a fun and worthwhile learning experience. You might find helpful the notes from my programming languages course, which is taught in Haskell: https://hendrix-cs.github.io/csci360/ Having `Type` and `Value` ADTs to represent types and values makes sense. They often do correspond closely since there is often a canonical kind of value for each type, but they are not necessarily exactly the same. You didn't mention an ADT for expressions/terms, i.e. syntax. Typically you will parse concrete syntax to produce a Term, and then you will typecheck a Term to make sure it has a valid Type. Then you can interpret the Term to produce a Value. I am not sure what the point of TypedValue is. Typically, once you are finished with typechecking, you no longer need to keep track of types while interpreting. -Brent On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 7:36 AM Talha Qamar via Haskell-Cafe < haskell-cafe@haskell.org> wrote:
Hello everyone, I'm working on a game engine in Haskell. The thing is, while I want to write the architecture in Haskell, I'm thinking of using something else as the actual scripting language.
Long story short, how would I represent a type system in Haskell? I've gotten _something_ together that works a bit like this:
``` data Type = -- ...all possible types data Value = -- ...all possible types again data TypedValue = TypedValye Type Value ``` But I'm concerned if this is the ideal way of doing things, particularly when I get to complex types like structs or tagged unions.
Any help would be appreciated.
Sent from Proton Mail mobile
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.