←back to thread

169 points mattmarcus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
gopiandcode ◴[] No.43612615[source]
The visualisation of how the model sees nullability was fascinating.

I'm curious if this probing of nullability could be composed with other LLM/ML-based python-typing tools to improve their accuracy.

Maybe even focusing on interfaces such as nullability rather than precise types would work better with a duck-typed language like python than inferring types directly (i.e we don't really care if a variable is an int specifically, but rather that it supports _add or _sub etc. that it is numeric).

replies(2): >>43612696 #>>43612793 #
qsort ◴[] No.43612696[source]
> we don't really care if a variable is an int specifically, but rather that it supports _add or _sub etc. that it is numeric

my brother in christ, you invented Typescript.

(I agree on the visualization, it's very cool!)

replies(1): >>43613381 #
gopiandcode ◴[] No.43613381[source]
I am more than aware of Typescript, you seem to have misunderstood my point: I was not describing a particular type system (of which there have been many of this ilk) but rather conjecturing that targeting interfaces specifically might make LLM-based code generation/type inference more effective.
replies(1): >>43613791 #
1. qsort ◴[] No.43613791{3}[source]
Yeah, I read that comment wrong. I didn't mean to come off like that. Sorry.