On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Sebastian Fischer < s...@informatik.uni-kiel.de> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 12:17 AM, Henning Thielemann wrote: > > On Thu, 28 May 2009, Bulat Ziganshin wrote: >> >> i use another approach which imho is somewhat closer to interpretation >>> of logical operations in dynamic languages (lua, ruby, perl): [...] >>> >> >> The absence of such interpretations and thus the increased type safety was >> one of the major the reasons for me to move from scripting languages to >> Haskell. >> > > Do you argue that overloading logical operations like this in Haskell > sacrifices type safety? Could programs "go wrong" [1] that use such > abstractions? If I understand your point correctly, you are suggesting that such programs are still type safe. I agree with the claim that such features are detrimental in practice though. Instead of lumping it with type safety, then what do we call it? I think I've heard of languages that do such conversions as "weakly" typed. Really the issue is with implicit conversions, right? Jason
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
