-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I heard only rumors, but isn't Lisp supposed to be just that? A
programmable programming language?
Peter Verswyvelen schrieb:
This is all very cool stuff, but sometimes I wander if it isn't possible
to drop the special languages for fiddling
I'm not sure, I don't know LISP in detail, but as far as I know, LISP is
a fully dynamic language.
I actually meant a static language where you build your own strong types
using the language itself. On the micro level, the language only knows
abouts bits and bytes without semantics, just like
On 13/09/2007, at 0:06, Don Stewart wrote:
ok:
In Monad.Reader 8, Conrad Parker shows how to solve the Instant
Insanity
puzzle in the Haskell type system. Along the way he
demonstrates very
clearly something that was implicit in Mark Jones' Type Classes with
Functional Dependencies paper
For a taste, see Instant Insanity transliterated in this functional
language:
http://hpaste.org/2689
I thought I'd better paste here the code for Instant Insanity with
Type Families. Otherwise it will vanish in a short time.
I took the opportunity to clean it up a bit.
Although AT are
Better here means better -- a functional language on the type
system,
to type a functional language on the value level.
-- Don
For a taste, see Instant Insanity transliterated in this functional
language:
http://hpaste.org/2689
NB: it took me 5 minutes, and that was my first
This is all very cool stuff, but sometimes I wander if it isn't possible
to drop the special languages for fiddling with types, and introduce
just a single language which has no types, only raw data from which you
can built your own types (as in the old days when we used macro
assemblers ;-),
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 11:12 -0700, Don Stewart wrote:
Better here means better -- a functional language on the type
system,
to type a functional language on the value level.
-- Don
For a taste, see Instant Insanity transliterated in this functional
language:
I wrote:
Since not all Turing machines halt, and since the halting problem is
undecidable, this means not only that some Haskell programs will make
the type checker loop forever, but that there is no possible meta-
checker that could warn us when that would happen.
On 13 Sep 2007, at 4:27 pm,
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 10:42 +1200, ok wrote:
I wrote:
Since not all Turing machines halt, and since the halting problem is
undecidable, this means not only that some Haskell programs will make
the type checker loop forever, but that there is no possible meta-
checker that could warn us
Pepe Iborra wrote,
For a taste, see Instant Insanity transliterated in this functional
language:
http://hpaste.org/2689
I thought I'd better paste here the code for Instant Insanity with Type
Families. Otherwise it will vanish in a short time.
I took the opportunity to clean it up a bit.
Derek Elkins wrote,
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 11:12 -0700, Don Stewart wrote:
Better here means better -- a functional language on the type
system,
to type a functional language on the value level.
-- Don
For a taste, see Instant Insanity transliterated in this functional
language:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:05:34AM +1000, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Just to complete transferring the discussion from the ephemeral hpaste to
the mailing list. My response to the lack of being able to display
normalised types was that GHC actually goes to considerable trouble to
On 9/14/07, Thomas Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The type system doesn't help you avoid writing non-terminating programs,
so i see no problem with it being possible giving programmers the power
to express and check more complex properties of their programs -- as
long as type-checking
In Monad.Reader 8, Conrad Parker shows how to solve the Instant Insanity
puzzle in the Haskell type system. Along the way he demonstrates very
clearly something that was implicit in Mark Jones' Type Classes with
Functional Dependencies paper if you read it very very carefully (which
I hadn't,
ok wrote:
So we have
C++ : imperative language whose type system is a Turing-complete
functional language (with rather twisted syntax)
Haskell: functional language whose type system is a Turing-
complete logic programming language (with rather twisted
ok:
In Monad.Reader 8, Conrad Parker shows how to solve the Instant Insanity
puzzle in the Haskell type system. Along the way he demonstrates very
clearly something that was implicit in Mark Jones' Type Classes with
Functional Dependencies paper if you read it very very carefully (which
I
C++ : imperative language whose type system is a Turing-complete
functional language (with rather twisted syntax)
Haskell: functional language whose type system is a Turing-
complete logic programming language (with rather twisted
syntax)
17 matches
Mail list logo
