Re: relations aren't types?

"Adrian Kubala" <adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net> wrote in message <news:slrnc03mes.p3l.adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net>...

> John Jacob <jingleheimerschmitt_at_hotmail.com> schrieb:

> > I agree that if a given construct can be implemented as a short-hand
> > for some more primitive construct then it should, but I'm not
> > convinced that the type system given in TTM can be reduced.
>
> I'm convinced by experience with, i.e. Haskell which certainly seems to
> be at the cutting edge of usable type systems. I haven't read TTM (yet)
> though.

You should! TTM does seem to have an imperative language bias, because relvars may be modified and thus have state, but maybe "monads" can be used to deal with this:

 URL:http://haskell.org/tutorial/io.html

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com>  Sign the Check! <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above        They're   coming  to
because  my cats have  apparently  learned to type.        take me away, ha ha!