> I consider even the second one to be mixing the proofs > with the code, because there's no easy way that I can tell at > a glance that `sortReallySorts' is a proof rather than a program. But I consider that a feature and not a bug. :-) -- Lennart
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Lennart Augustsson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson
- RE: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Nick Kallen
- RE: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Nick Kallen
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Lennart Augustsson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Lennart Augustsson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Lennart Augustsson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Lennart Augustsson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Lennart Augustsson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson
- RE: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Nick Kallen
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Carl R. Witty
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Carl R. Witty
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Carl R. Witty
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Fergus Henderson
- Re: Haskell 2 -- Dependent types? Carl R. Witty