Paul Rubin wrote: > "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> All serious languages are turing-complete. So can we put away with this >> non-sense argument right away, please? > > Actually the so called "total" languages aren't Turing-complete. I > think Coq is an example: every Coq function must return a value. So
<snip/> Please, Paul. There is no need to hijack every thread to show off your mad functional and wicked staticly typed programming language skillz. We had that discussion at a different time, and you very well know that with serious I didn't mean "can be used to program rockets that don't fall of the earth", but that aren't toy-languages used to solve real-world problems. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list