Dear Haskellers,
This a report on the recent state of the Basic algebra proposal
(basAlgPropos).
And I need certain political advice about it.
There is also a section about Cayenne.
basAlgPropos was revised. The sample argument (SA) approach remains.
It was written a paper about this (12 pages).
The paper was criticised by the two negative referees against one
positive.
Now, it is improved, both in its English and in the clarity of
presentation.
It explains the library principles as clear as I am ever able to do
this.
Forget of all previous basAlgPropos materials and letters.
The implementation (in Haskell-pre-2) is ready, except
* that no expanded documentation exists so far,
* the problem with redefining `fromInteger', (`-' - negate)
substitution for the numeric literals,
* that I cannot make Hugs to reexport and reimport module items
in desired way
- so far, the library works only under GHC-4.08,
* that different Haskell implementations handle the overlapping
instances in a different way
* minor details to complete, like the error messages that display
the domain descriptions.
And there arises a question.
To make the implementation accessible, the paper file has to be
included there as the necessary part of documentation. Maybe, not
literally the paper, but something that 90% coincides with it.
On the other hand, I want the paper to be published somewhere, maybe,
in some conference proceedings, or I do not know, where. Just to have
a `publication' and a "hard" reference, not only an http location.
So, I wonder,
* where to submit the paper,
* whether publishing its file in www as a part of the library
documentation may destroy its future acceptance for publication.
Who could advise, please?
basAlgPropos & Cayenne
----------------------
I have studied the beginning of the Cayenne paper.
It looks sensible. The dependent types solve the dynamic parameter
domain problem.
The types should be almost as first-class as ordinary data. Because
the domains in the nature (mathematics) often have to appear as
dynamically as their elements.
The program specifications and proofs present a very necessary
attribute of a meaningful programming.
Because a program has not only to say "multiply this, add this and
repeat this loop". It should explain to the compiler in terms of
the map properties *what* is computed.
The advanced mathematics has to be programmed in a Cayenne-like
language - if only the latter can be reasonably implemented.
But to my mind, the SA approach provides some possibility for the
advanced mathematics to be exploited in Haskell.
This possibility may be practically important because, for example,
Haskell already has some reliable and highly workable
implementations.
Thank you in advance for the suggestions.
------------------
Sergey Mechveliani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
