Re: Arrays and general functions
David Barton writes: And finally, it makes sense to have separate syntax for arrays and general functions, because different behavior is expected for the two. Here, I may be exposing my cluelessness, but this seems a (search for a better word --- none found) silly statement. There are many cases where we want different behavior to be expressed by the same syntax. Well, perhaps behavior is the wrong word. Also, I find your approach interesting. On the other hand, general functions and arrays are typically mixed in a program. If the distinction between the two is limited to type declarations, then from my perspective it becomes difficult to read and understand programs. The difference between functions as rules and arrays to me is much more significant than the difference between adding reals and adding integers. From your perspective, maybe any distinction gets in the way. In practice, I have not had this problem. Ken
Arrays and general functions
Ken Sailor writes: On the other hand, general functions and arrays are typically mixed in a program. If the distinction between the two is limited to type declarations, then from my perspective it becomes difficult to read and understand programs. The difference between functions as rules and arrays to me is much more significant than the difference between adding reals and adding integers. From your perspective, maybe any distinction gets in the way. In practice, I have not had this problem. The distinction indeed gets in the way; however, this may well be a product of the application area in which I am working (I *did* admit my bias in all this). If we define the behavior of an engineering component in a microwave system by a function, the distinction between whether that function is defined by an array (table of values) or a rule (a function definition in the present Haskell sense) had better be hidden! We want very much to treat these independent of the mechanism of defining them. I am interested in how the lack of a distinction gets in the way of your reading and understanding programs, however. After all, I do want to make sure we are not introducing problems here! Granting that this is a somewhat theoretical discussion, could you elaborate a bit here? What kind of expression would become difficult to understand if the distinction between arrays and rule-defined functions was hidden? I don't want to impose on your time unreasonably, but a couple of small examples might be helpful. Dave Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Arrays and general functions
Interesting discussion, but it seems to me that Haskell already provides the best of both worlds, namely a. Efficient implementation of arrays as data objects, with indexing as a projection function; and b. Definition of functions with (Ix a) domains by indexing an array behind the scenes or by any other rule. Arrays satisfy the needs of an important user community. Is there something more needed to satisfy the general-function community?
