Nicolas Pouillard schrieb:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:47:12 +0200, Janis Voigtländer
<j...@informatik.uni-bonn.de> wrote:
Nicolas Pouillard schrieb:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:27:01 +0200, Janis Voigtländer
<j...@informatik.uni-bonn.de> wrote:
Nicolas Pouillard schrieb:
However the rule is still the same when using an unsafe function you are on
your own.
Clearer?
Almost. What I am missing is whether or not you would then consider your
genericSeq (which is applicable to functions) one of those "unsafe
functions" or not.
I would consider it as a safe function.
Well, then I fear you have come full-circle back to a non-solution. It
is not safe:
I feared a bit... but no
Consider the example foldl''' from our paper, and replace seq therein by
your genericSeq. Then the function will have the same type as the
original foldl, but the standard free theorem for foldl does not hold
for foldl''' (as also shown in the paper).
So foldl''' now has some Typeable constraints.
No, I don't see how it has that. Or maybe you should make explicit under
what conditions a type (a -> b) is in Typeable. What exactly will the
type of foldl''' be, and why?
Ciao,
Janis.
--
Jun.-Prof. Dr. Janis Voigtländer
http://www.iai.uni-bonn.de/~jv/
mailto:j...@iai.uni-bonn.de
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
