On 13/05/2007, at 12:44, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi Thanks for all the responses, I'm busy reading through them. I'm still trying to decide whether I should use them or not. They complicate things, are less intuitive than names. But on the other hand, the language I'm working in is untyped and has only letrec. These things make binding errors easier to occur, and harder to detect. Thanks for the helpful throughts, Neil
The Calculus of Indexed Names and Named Indices (CINNI) [1] looks really neat:
"The Calculus of Indexed Names and Named Indices (CINNI) is a new calculus of explicit substitutions that combines names and indices in a uniform way. It contains the standard named notation used in logics and programming languages as well as de'Bruijn's indexed notation as sublanguages. "
Disclaimer: I haven't read the Epigram paper nor Berkling, so I don't know how it compares. And I can't really talk from my own experience, since I have not played myself with CINNI yet. I wish I had a build-a- language assignment, just so that I could put CINNI to work...
[1] - http://formal.cs.uiuc.edu/stehr/cinni_eng.html _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
