> In both, the JFP & APLAS paper, the authors note that no fancy type
> extension are needed for this approach. But in almost every (Haskell)
> example that is a bit more involved the authors do make use of
> functional dependencies and / or type families. GADTs are also being
> used, although *not* in the syntax definition...
Just to dispel the doubts, here is the Haskell98 version of the
previously posted code CB.hs (tagless final interpreter for
call-by-name, call-by-value and call-by-need lambda-calculus with
integers and constants)
http://okmij.org/ftp/Haskell/CB98.hs
It may appear somewhat less convenient. How less convenient -- well,
you decide.
The code can be easily re-written in OCaml, which has no typeclasses,
type families and other bleeding edge features. Talking about it
here is probably not appropriate. (I wonder if someone has ever
cross-posted to the Haskell and Caml lists).
P.S.
> I'm still digesting the "Finally Tagless" approach from Oleg, Jacques
> and Chen.
You probably mean Chung-chieh Shan, whose last name is Shan and the
first name is Chung-chieh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_name
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
