> 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 carry out _syntactical_ transformations of a program that preserve its meaning. For example, if you can freely and naively inline a function definition without having to worry too much about context then your PL is deemed to possess lots of RT-goodness (according to FP propaganda anyway; note you typically can't freely inline function definitions in a procedural programming language because the actual arguments to the function may involve dastardly side effects; even with a strict function-calling semantics divergence will complicate matters). Chris _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
