And what's the denotational semantics of type classes? As far as I know it has never been done, because it's very complex.
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Achim Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, it's an unformalised and not much thought about out-of-the-tub > idea, but here it goes: > > Let there be a monad/typeclass representing the denotional semantics of > Haskell > > Do some instances of it, called e.g. GHC or Hugs. > > so, instead of > > main :: IO () > > we have > > main :: (Haskell h) => h (IO ()) > > or, if you need some feature of the Haskell runtime system XYZ > > main :: XYZ (IO ()) > > or even > > main :: (FFI h) => h (IO ()) > > and > > main :: (SomeLib h) => h (IO ()) > > , and then go on and define every single language construct as part of > this type hierarchy, and define some syntactic sugar to make stuff look > exactly like haskell '98 if you're just hacking away. > > I especially like the metacircularity of this approach, and the fact > that every Model (read: implementation) of Haskell would have to admit > that it is only a Model (read: instance) of Haskell. > > -- > (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for > past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying, > hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this > signature prohibited. > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
