Thanks for the thorough answer, Dan.
That's exactly what I was looking for.
During further search, I stumbled on an excellent introductory
description of recursive types in a draft of Robert Harper's book
Programming Languages: Theory and Practice
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/plbook/book.pdf
-- vi
Dear All,
Recently, I've been playing with self-application and fixed-point
combinators definition in Haskell.
It is possible to type them in Haskell using recursive types.
I took Y U combinators:
newtype Rec a = In { out :: Rec a - a }
u :: Rec a - a
u x = out x x
y :: (a - a) - a
y f
Dear All,
Recently, I've been playing with self-application and fixed-point
combinators definition in Haskell.
It is possible to type them in Haskell using recursive types.
I took Y U combinators:
newtype Rec a = In { out :: Rec a - a }
u :: Rec a - a
u x = out x x
y :: (a - a) - a
y f
On Friday 25 December 2009 11:35:38 am Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
Dear All,
Recently, I've been playing with self-application and fixed-point
combinators definition in Haskell.
It is possible to type them in Haskell using recursive types.
I took Y U combinators:
newtype Rec a = In { out
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:39:50AM +0200, Petr Pudlak wrote:
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 12:18:40PM +0400, Eugene Kirpichov wrote:
Haskell has terms depending on types (polymorphic terms) and types
depending on types (type families?), but no dependent types.
But how about undecidability? I'd
Type checking is decidable for all of the lambda cube, but not type inference.
Haskell 98 is a subset of Fw, Haskell with extensions is an superset of Fw.
-- Lennart
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.edu wrote:
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:39:50AM +0200, Petr
vo...@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de wrote:
2009/5/24 Petr Pudlak d...@pudlak.name:
If all Haskell had would be HM, it would be System F.
That cannot be quite right, can it? System F has more powerful
polymorphism than HM.
As I recall HM is along the edge to \lambda^2.
Haskell 98 is typically
Hi, I'm trying to get some better understanding of the theoretical foundations
behind Haskell. I wonder, where exactly does Haskell type system fit within the
lambda cube? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_cube
I guess it could also vary depending on what extensions are turned on.
Thanks,
Haskell has terms depending on types (polymorphic terms) and types
depending on types (type families?), but no dependent types.
2009/5/24 Petr Pudlak d...@pudlak.name:
Hi, I'm trying to get some better understanding of the theoretical foundations
behind Haskell. I wonder, where exactly does
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 12:18:40PM +0400, Eugene Kirpichov wrote:
Haskell has terms depending on types (polymorphic terms) and types
depending on types (type families?), but no dependent types.
But how about undecidability? I'd say that lambda2 or lambda-omega have
undecidable type checking,
2009/5/24 Petr Pudlak d...@pudlak.name:
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 12:18:40PM +0400, Eugene Kirpichov wrote:
Haskell has terms depending on types (polymorphic terms) and types
depending on types (type families?), but no dependent types.
But how about undecidability? I'd say that lambda2 or
2009/5/24 Petr Pudlak d...@pudlak.name:
If all Haskell had would be HM, it would be System F.
That cannot be quite right, can it? System F has more powerful
polymorphism than HM.
Ciao,
Janis.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
12 matches
Mail list logo
