Ross Paterson:
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 11:25:44AM -0500, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
My statement remains: Why use a relational notation if you can have a
functional one?
I agree that functions on static data are more attractive than logic
programming at the type level. But with
Bulat Ziganshin:
Hello Lennart,
Sunday, March 19, 2006, 4:05:03 AM, you wrote:
LA I have to agree with Manuel. I write a lot of Haskell code.
LA People even pay me to do it. I usually stay with Haskell-98,
when i wrote application code, i also don't used extensions very much,
i even
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 11:25:44AM -0500, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
My statement remains: Why use a relational notation if you can have a
functional one?
I agree that functions on static data are more attractive than logic
programming at the type level. But with associated type synonyms,
Manuel M T Chakravarty writes:
The big question is: do we really want to do logic programming over
types? I'd say, no!
With ATs you're still doing logic programming if you like or not.
As Ross Paterson writes:
I agree that functions on static data are more attractive than logic
