On Fri, 2011-12-23 at 01:29 +0400, MigMit wrote: > Отправлено с iPad > > 22.12.2011, в 23:56, Conor McBride <co...@strictlypositive.org> > написал(а): > > > I'd be glad if "pure" meant "total", but > > partiality were an effect supported by the run-time system. Then we > > could choose to restrict ourselves, but we wouldn't be restricted by > the > > language. > > I second that. Having a special "partiality" monad would be nice. > However, I'm not certain as to how it would interact with recursion — > if f is a total function, fix f could be (and almost certainly would > be) a possibly undiefined value. So, fix should have type "(a -> a) -> > Partial a"; that's OK, but implicit uses of fix (I mean let > statements) would be quite different.
IIRC in ML-derived languages there is difference between let and let rec. All implicit fix can be changed into explicit so I imagine that: let rec f x = x -- a -> Partial a let g x = x -- a -> a Regards
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
