Frank A. Christoph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> Sergey Mechveliani wrote:
>>
>> Adding *rules* to language would NOT cause scripting graphics via term
>> rewriting logic. I suppose, you know this.
>> If you do not set {rules..} in your program, you would never notice
>> they exist.
> Huh? Scripting graphics?
I understood David Barton's note as that he fears of `rules' feature
to force him to change the programming style, the style he applies for
programming graphic in Haskell.
I note that `rules' damages nothing. They make difference only to those
programmers that venture to set {rules..} in their program.
> As it stands, the rules extension does not sit well with Haskell's other
> features. (Compare this with Maude, where analogous mechanisms are
> intimately related to the foundations of the language.)
I am starting to love Maude.
> [..] but I feel Maude is less a programming language than it is an
> algebraic theorem prover---its programs are not necessarily confluent.
Maybe, join Haskell and Maude and be happy? :-)
Can one think of programming in Haskell the Maude interpreter?
------------------
Sergey Mechveliani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
