On Thursday 31 May 2007 11:39:14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ... > Mathematica changed a bit the perspective, along - perhaps - the same > lines as Schoonschip, where the fundamental stuff was *rewriting/ > transformations*. So, Mathematica since the begininng was equipped with > a very powerful pattern-matcher/substitution contraption. For the sake > of efficiency it was less powerful than a general unifier, but it was > really nice (and it existed already in SMP, before the birth of > Mathematica). Now, again, somebody would do that in 4 days?? > The semantic pattern-matcher within an algebraic package, is worlds > apart from the syntactic/structural pattern-matcher of Haskell.
Can you elaborate on this? I would imagine that the pattern matcher in a term-level Haskell interpreter would be quite similar to one from a toy Mathematica-like rewriter. Also, what aspects of this do you think would take more than 4 days? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. OCaml for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?e _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
