"Lennart Augustsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And what's the denotational semantics of type classes? As far as I > know it has never been done, because it's very complex. > I have no idea whatsoever, but dare to say that the target language just isn't appropriate, iff it turns out to be complex.
As a matter of taste, I'd go for axiomatic semantics instead, exspecially if considering metacircularity. Lisp, for example, can be reduced to get! == set!, leaving all the confusion as an implementation detail. -- (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
