On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Birkett wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Is a formal proof that the Haskell language is referentially transparent? >> Many people state "haskell is RT" without backing up that claim. I know >> that, in practice, I can't write any counter-examples but that's a bit >> handy-wavy. Is there a formal proof that, for all possible haskell >> programs, we can replace coreferent expressions without changing the meaning >> of a program? > > The (well, a natural approach to a) formal proof would be to give a formal > semantics for haskell.
Haskell 98 does not seem that big to me (it's not teeny, but it's nothing like C++), yet we are continually embarrassed about not having any formal semantics. What are the challenges preventing its creation? Luke _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
