Jerzy Karczmarczuk writes:
I am afraid that Sergey is dreaming of transforming Haskell into a
universal Computer Algebra system. We know for more than 30 years
that the general problem of algebraic simplification is a mess. OK,
some polynomial transformations can be done, but I suspect that
enhancing a parser with such rule recognition system containing
obviously the non-linear pattern matching (if not a full
unifier...) seems a deadly idea.
Boy, do I agree with this.
What began with a fairly limited, and practical, suggestion on Simon's
part to assist the compiler with optimizations and transformations
that are valid in some cases and not in others has blossomed into a
search for a full logical language, with inference, proof checking,
and all the rest.
Look, if you want a logical language, go for it. Frankly, I am in the
throes of Language Puppy Love(tm) with Maude right this second (those
who are interested, check out http://maude.csl.sri.com). Neat stuff.
But that doesn't mean I want to twist Haskell to fit that frame. Nor
does it mean that I want to abandon Haskell and do all my graphics
interface programming and scripting via term rewriting logic. Have no
fear, Haskell, you are still my first love!
Please, let's not try to twist Haskell into something it's not, and
was not designed to be. I'm still thinking about Simon's proposal,
but at the very least we should limit it to those places where it is
practically advantageous, rather than attempting to extend it beyond
the point where it is, clearly and straightforwardly, to our direct
(implementational!) benefit.
Dave Barton <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] )0(
http://www.averstar.com/~dlb
