Has anyone written an efficient purely-functional
implementation of unification (for type checking)? If
not, what makes it difficult to solve the problem in that
way?
David Feuer
This message has been brought to you by the letter alpha and the number pi.
Greetings.
In section 4.1 of Haskell Report for 98:
It is indicated that (-) has kind * - *- * and
t1 - t2 is equivalent to type (-) t1 t2
Does this make (-) a type constructor? Is this an attempt to unify
functions and data types?
Thanks
___
From: Cagdas Ozgenc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Greetings.
In section 4.1 of Haskell Report for 98:
It is indicated that (-) has kind * - *- * and
t1 - t2 is equivalent to type (-) t1 t2
Does this make (-) a type constructor? Is this an
attempt to unify
functions and data types?
(-) is
David Feuer wrote:
Has anyone written an efficient purely-functional
implementation of unification (for type checking)?
Well, if you have ever used hbc or nhc, you have used type checkers
containing purely functional implementations of unification. Purely
functional unification can be
From: Thomas Hallgren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Feuer wrote:
Has anyone written an efficient purely-functional
implementation of unification (for type checking)?
Well, if you have ever used hbc or nhc, you have used
type checkers
containing purely functional implementations of
Any thumb rule for using arrays? I'm expecting access to be
O(1), it is right?
In GHC, yes.
Need to have a set of data, and I just want to get random
elements from that
Set, arrays seem like a good solution... am I right?
If you're building it once and doing lots of access, then
