Uday Reddy has followed up with another substantial and interesting post on
referential transparency here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/210835/what-is-referential-transparency/11740176#11740176
The thrust of his argument appears to be that functional programmers have
created a lot of
On 7/27/12 1:49 PM, Ross Paterson wrote:
So a language is referentially transparent if replacing a sub-term with
another with the same denotation doesn't change the overall meaning?
But then isn't any language RT with a sufficiently cunning denotational
semantics? Or even a dumb one that gives e
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, damodar kulkarni wrote:
So a language is referentially transparent if replacing a sub-term with
another with the same denotation doesn't change the overall meaning?
But then isn't any language RT with a sufficiently cunning denotational
semantics? Or even a dumb one tha
Except in the complexity gymnastics and the fragility of the conclusions.
Humans can't do large scale complex brain gymnastics - that's why abstraction
exists - if your proof process doesn't abstract (and in the C case you need to
know *everything* about *everything* and have to "prove" it all i
So a language is referentially transparent if replacing a sub-term with
> another with the same denotation doesn't change the overall meaning?
> But then isn't any language RT with a sufficiently cunning denotational
> semantics? Or even a dumb one that gives each term a distinct denotation.
Tha
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 07:19:40PM +0100, Chris Dornan wrote:
> > > So a language is referentially transparent if replacing a sub-term
> with another with the same
> > > denotation doesn't change the overall meaning?
> >
> > Isn't this just
On Jul 27, 2012 8:07 PM, "Ross Paterson" wrote:
> Another way of looking at it is that the denotational semanticists have
> created a beautiful language to express the meanings of all those ugly
> languages, and we're programming in it.
I think that's the idea.
Also works out for compiler write
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 07:19:40PM +0100, Chris Dornan wrote:
> > So a language is referentially transparent if replacing a sub-term with
> > another with the same
> > denotation doesn't change the overall meaning?
>
> Isn't this just summarizing the distinguishing characteristic of a
> denotati
> So a language is referentially transparent if replacing a sub-term with
> another with the same
> denotation doesn't change the overall meaning?
Isn't this just summarizing the distinguishing characteristic of a denotational
semantics?
My understanding is that RT is about how easy it is to ca
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 01:08:31PM +0100, Chris Dornan wrote:
> For those who haven’t seen it Uday Reddy has a comprehensive answer to a
> request to explain referential transparency on Stack Overflow.
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/210835/what-is-referential-transparency/9
> 859966#98599
Claus Reinke [mailto:claus.rei...@talk21.com]:
> I happen to disagree with Reddy's assertion that having to explain a
complicated language
> with the help of a less complicated one is perfectly adequate. Reddy
himself has done good
> work on semantics of programming languages, but I'm a programmer
Have we become a bit complacent about RT?
We're not complacent, we just know things without having to
check references. Just kidding, of course, functional programmers
tend to enjoy improving their understanding!-)
The Strachey reference is worth reading - great that it is online
these days, bu
Café,
For those who havent seen it Uday Reddy has a comprehensive answer to a
request
to explain referential transparency on Stack Overflow.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/210835/what-is-referential-transparency/9
859966#9859966
For good measure he finishes with a rather scathing assessme
13 matches
Mail list logo
