On Jan 23, 2007, at 14:58 , Seth Gordon wrote:
The only catch I see to that POV is that the way `seq` is defined,
"undefined `seq` 42" *must* return an error. If this were
analogous to
"(p^~p)->q", then "undefined `seq` 42" would be allowed to return any
value whatsoever.
That's not quite what I was trying to say. (p^~p)->q is equivalent
to _|_ in the sense that once you derive/compute (respectively) it,
the "world" in which it exists breaks. (I don't think formal logic
can have a Haskell-like _|_, but deriving (p^~p)->q is close to it in
effect.)
--
brandon s. allbery [linux,solaris,freebsd,perl] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
