See "What is a purely functional language" by Sabry. Not quite a
formal proof about *Haskell*, but then we would first need a formal
semantics of Haskell to be able to do that proof ;-)
On 12 Nov 2008, at 10:11, Andrew Birkett wrote:
Hi,
Is a formal proof that the Haskell language is referentially
transparent? Many people state "haskell is RT" without backing up
that claim. I know that, in practice, I can't write any counter-
examples but that's a bit handy-wavy. Is there a formal proof that,
for all possible haskell programs, we can replace coreferent
expressions without changing the meaning of a program?
(I was writing a blog post about the origins of the phrase
'referentially transparent' and it made me think about this)
Andrew
--
- http://www.nobugs.org -
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
