Agreed. The original note confuses programs (syntax) with functions
(semantics). -- Conal
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Dan Doel wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Grigory Sarnitskiy
> wrote:
> > First, what are 'functions' we are interested at? It can't be the usual
> set-theoretic d
10.04.2012, 02:00, "Ryan Ingram" :
> A concurring opinion here, and an example.
>
> iff :: Bol -> a -> a -> a
> iff True x _ = x
> iff False _ x = x
>
> f, g :: Bool -> Bool
> f x = x
> g x = iff x True False
>
> Are these two functions equal? I would say yes, they are. Yet once you can
> patte
Tillmann Rendel wrote:
> > I am curious what are interesting use-cases for that? Symbolic
> > analysis? self-compilers?
>
> Optimization. For example, imagine the following definition of
> function composition:
>
>map f . map g = map (f . g)
>f . g = \x -> f (g x)
>
> In Haskell, we canno
A concurring opinion here, and an example.
iff :: Bol -> a -> a -> a
iff True x _ = x
iff False _ x = x
f, g :: Bool -> Bool
f x = x
g x = iff x True False
Are these two functions equal? I would say yes, they are. Yet once you
can pattern match on functions, you can easily tell these functions
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Grigory Sarnitskiy wrote:
> Hello! I've just realized that Haskell is no good for working with
> functions!
>
> First, what are 'functions' we are interested at? It can't be the usual
> set-theoretic definition, since it is not constructive. The constructive
> defi
On 05/04/2012, Grigory Sarnitskiy wrote:
> One could expect from a language that bears 'functional' as its
> characteristic to be able to do everything imaginable with functions.
> However, the only thing Haskell can do with functions is to apply them to
> arguments and to feed them as arguments,
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Tillmann Rendel
wrote:
> Paul R wrote:
>>
>> I am curious what are interesting use-cases for that? Symbolic
>> analysis? self-compilers?
>
>
> Optimization. For example, imagine the following definition of function
> composition:
>
> map f . map g = map (f . g)
>
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Tillmann Rendel <
ren...@informatik.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
> Paul R wrote:
>
>> I am curious what are interesting use-cases for that? Symbolic
>> analysis? self-compilers?
>>
>
> Optimization. For example, imagine the following definition of function
> composition:
Paul R wrote:
I am curious what are interesting use-cases for that? Symbolic
analysis? self-compilers?
Optimization. For example, imagine the following definition of function
composition:
map f . map g = map (f . g)
f . g = \x -> f (g x)
In Haskell, we cannot write this, because we cann
Grigory> So now I wonder, what are the languages that are functional in
Grigory> the sense above? With a reasonable syntax and semantics, thus
Grigory> no assembler. I guess Lisp might be of this kind, but I'm not
Grigory> sure. In addition, I'm not a fan of parentheses. What else?
Grigory> Pure?
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Grigory Sarnitskiy wrote:
> First, what are 'functions' we are interested at? It can't be the usual
> set-theoretic definition, since it is not constructive. The constructive
> definition should imply functions that can be constructed, computed. Thus
> these are
Addendum:
Intel's Forte was the framework,
reFLect was the language : http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/tom.melham/res/reflect.html
Quoting that page:
"reFLect is a functional programming language designed and implemented by a
team at Intel Corporation's Strategic CAD Labs under the direction of Jim
Gru
On 5 Apr 2012, at 15:14, Grigory Sarnitskiy wrote:
> Hello! I've just realized that Haskell is no good for working with functions!
>
>
>
> Obviously, that's not all of the imaginable possibilities. One also can
> rewrite programs. And write programs that rewrite programs. And write
> pro
Le 5 avril 2012 16:14, Grigory Sarnitskiy a écrit :
> Hello! I've just realized that Haskell is no good for working with functions!
>
> First, what are 'functions' we are interested at? It can't be the usual
> set-theoretic definition, since it is not constructive. The constructive
> definition
Hello! I've just realized that Haskell is no good for working with functions!
First, what are 'functions' we are interested at? It can't be the usual
set-theoretic definition, since it is not constructive. The constructive
definition should imply functions that can be constructed, computed. Thus
15 matches
Mail list logo
