On Jun 1, 2009, at 12:17 AM, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
i use another approach which imho is somewhat closer to
interpretation
of logical operations in dynamic languages (lua, ruby, perl): [...]
The absence of such interpretations and thus the increased type
safety was one of the major the reasons for me to move from
scripting languages to Haskell.
Do you argue that overloading logical operations like this in Haskell
sacrifices type safety? Could programs "go wrong" [1] that use such
abstractions?
[1]: Robin Milner. A theory of type polymorphism in programming. J.
Comput.
Syst. Sci., 17:348–375, 1978.
--
Underestimating the novelty of the future is a time-honored tradition.
(D.G.)
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
