Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: >> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/DDC > > Yes, but that doesn't address the objectives that adding a monad system > would resolve: > > 1. Direct translation of existing haskell code.
Type and effect systems and monads are equivalent [1,2]. I would imagine a direct translation could be made. This seems like too much work perhaps? > 2. Formal analyzability. Not sure I understand this point. How is a type and effect system not formal or analyzable? Sandro [1] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=601775.601776 [2] http://ttic.uchicago.edu/~fluet/research/thesis/index.html _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
