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.