But this statement is not legal in compiled haskell -- so even if I could pretend that the original statement was not in haskell, this new example would still suggest to me that interpreted haskell and compiled haskell are different languages.
What this 'let' example brings to the table is that neither is a subset of the other. -- Raul On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Aai <[email protected]> wrote: > Did you use 'let'? > > Prelude> let f x= x+1 > (0.00 secs, 0 bytes) > Prelude> f 2 > 3 > > > On 21-06-12 19:19, Raul Miller wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Boyko Bantchev <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Haskell, on the other hand, is a compiler ... >>> It is a language, and its definition does not prescribe a specific >>> kind of language processor. And certainly there are interpreters. >> After looking at this... >> >> It seems to me that ghci (as an example of a successful "Haskell >> interpreter") does not implement the same language as ghc (as an >> example of a successful "Haskell compiler"). >> >> For example, the following statement is legal in ghc but not legal >> interactively in ghci: >> >> f x=x+1 >> > > -- > Met vriendelijke groet, > @@i = Arie Groeneveld > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
