On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 16:06 -0600, Derek Elkins wrote: > On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 07:11 -0800, Jonathan Cast wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 10:46 +0100, Thomas Davie wrote: > > > On 25 Jan 2009, at 10:08, Daniel Fischer wrote: > > > > > > > Am Sonntag, 25. Januar 2009 00:55 schrieb Conal Elliott: > > > >>> It's obvious because () is a defined value, while bottom is not - > > > >>> per > > > >>> definitionem. > > > >> > > > >> I wonder if this argument is circular. > > > >> > > > >> I'm not aware of "defined" and "not defined" as more than informal > > > >> terms. > > > > > > > > They are informal. I could've written one is a terminating > > > > computation while > > > > the other is not. > > > > > > Is that a problem when trying to find the least defined element of a > > > set of terminating computations? > > > > Yes. If you've got a set of terminating computations, and it has > > multiple distinct elements, it generally doesn't *have* a least element. > > The P in CPO stands for Partial. > > Yes, "partial" as in "partial order" (v. total order or preorder) not as > in partiality.
That's what I meant. jcc _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
