Mark Miller writes: >(define (accept-product (calc-factory :deep-frozen)) > (let (diode 0) > (define (diode-write (val :deep-frozen)) (setq diode val)) > (define (diode-read) (diode)) > (define q (calc-factory ... diode-write ...)) > (define bond (calc-factory ... diode-read ...)) > ...))
I want you to fill in the ellipses so that after translating it into Haskell, I have something that will compile and run. My initial impulse was to print out of copy of "Regained" and study it till I knew enough to fill in the ellipses myself. After all, your papers are well worth studying and you're an important computer scientist. (Though I think I understand the reasons for your career choice, I find it quite ironic that you are a grad student right now.) But then it occured to me that when the communication between you and I sticks as much as possible to _formal language_, the collective cognitive burden of communicating is likely to be much lower. I.e., I believe formal language--at least the kinds of formal languages (Scheme, E, Haskell) we are using here--makes a great interface between two computer scientists who wish to swap/share knowledge of their respective subspecialties. (If only our formal languages were protean enough to encompass _more_ of the topics we are interested in! I say.) For my part, when I finish my coding and testing in Haskell, I'll translate my results back into pseudo-Scheme, "novice"-E or whatever other formal language you prefer. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
