but then, it would be too easy to write this in haskell:
coerce :: a -> b coerce x = undefined
As an obvious consequence, Haskell type system would be unsound.
So, I assumed that this would be a wrong interpretation.
This is the part of your email which frightens me the most. Of course Haskell's type system is unsound! What factors lead you to this kind of assumption?
Clearly a misconception of mine.
Is it a good excuse that people told me that (or I misunderstood them) :) ?
I'm no expert on this, but I would think that 'undefined' is a property of the dynamic semantics, not static semantics: i.e. although you will get a run-time error when you run the thing, it is still sound with respect to the type system.
This is probably the same situation as if you had:
coerce :: a -> b
coerce x = error "Foo"Both error (i.e. _|_) and undefined are not ill-typed here, but IANATT[1].
1. I Am Not A Type Theorist
-- % Andre Pang : trust.in.love.to.save
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
