> > All (all?) I'm proposing is to print them out.
>
> Yes we do, and it's fine for the *implementation* to print such things out.
> But it is NOT fine to cross the dividing line of (1) the implementation, and
> (2) the language it implements. As I believe I have made abundantly clear
> a showFu
>John says we can't go from a function to its concrete representation
>ie E -> [E] - OK. He hints that implementations are from concrete
>representations to real functions ie [E] -> E. I disagree profoundly.
I'm not surprised you disagree. I hinted no such thing. Implementations
manipulate repr
Greg Michaelson writes:
Incidentally, my point about not bothering to evaluate functional
programs whose final values are functions was serious. Presumably,
people don't generally write programs that return functions as
final values?
I suppose it depends on what you call a "function
John says we can't go from a function to its concrete representation
ie E -> [E] - OK. He hints that implementations are from concrete
representations to real functions ie [E] -> E. I disagree profoundly.
Implementations are from concrete representations to concrete
representations. Suppose E1 i
