Martin Sulzmann wrote: > Mark P Jones wrote: > > In fact, the two sets of dependencies that you have given here are > > provably equivalent, so it would be decidedly odd to have a "type > > improvement" system that distinguishes between them.
> Based on the FD-CHR formulation, for the single-range FD case we > get [...] which is clearly weaker. > [...] > So, I conclude that in the Haskell type improvement context > there's clearly a difference among single-range and multi-range FDs. This seems like a flaw in FD-CHR, rather than a fundamental difference between the dependencies. > Of course, we could define multi-range FDs in terms of single-range FDs > which then trivially solves the "equivalence" problem (but some user > may be disappointed that their multi-range FDs yield weaker improvement). Why not instead transform single-range FDs into multi-range ones where possible? Ganesh ============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ============================================================================== _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe