On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 10:46 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Jonathan Cast > <jonathancc...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > > > Yes. If you've got a set of terminating > computations, and it > > has > > multiple distinct elements, it generally doesn't > *have* a > > least element. > > The P in CPO stands for Partial. > > > > jcc > > > > and this concern does not apply to () . > > > And? () behaves in exactly the same fashion as every other > Haskell data > type in existence, and in consequence we're having an > extended, not > entirely coherent, discussion of how wonderful it would be if > it was a > quite inconsistent special case instead? Why? > > I think the discussion is not about adding an inconsistent special > case, but about theories in which a bottomless () is consistent. > > The denotational meaning of a program is nothing more than a meaning > function applied to its syntax. In this discussion, we are simply > toying with the meaning functions which remain faithful to our > intuition about what a program "should" do, while giving slightly > different answers on the edge cases, to see if it is more or less > beautiful/consistent/useful. > > This discussion is in the same vein as discussions about what Haskell > looks like if you remove seq, or if all one-constructor data types are > unlifted -- both of those clean up the semantics considerably. What > if this does too, and we just don't see how? We're trying to see.
Have fun. I'll just ignore you and go work on actually *doing* FP, instead. jcc _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe