|
@@ -348,4 +348,13 @@ Thus, the last statement, $y := x.f$, tries to reach the undefined (according to
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Extension of the static analysis}
|
|
|
|
|
|
+A better solution of the two previous approaches is the union of them.
|
|
|
+In other words, we could extend the static analysis by using the result of the type checking.
|
|
|
+In this way, the two previous examples will be rightly rejected by the new analysis.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+% An other improvement could be made the analysis of the expressions.
|
|
|
+% Expressions are defined inductively and can contain sub-epxressions.
|
|
|
+% But the current static analysis only process one level of expression.
|
|
|
+% For instance, if we have an expression % TODO
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
\end{document}
|