Re: relations aren't types?
From: Adrian Kubala <adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:32:57 -0600
Message-ID: <slrnc0748p.vjp.adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:32:57 -0600
Message-ID: <slrnc0748p.vjp.adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net>
Marshall Spight <mspight_at_dnai.com> schrieb:
> Your post, while interesting, doesn't seem to be a response to what I
> wrote. I was addressing one very narrow implementation concern. (Or
> "efficiency concern" if you like that better.)
I must have misunderstood you. I saw this:
> In designing the ideal high-level applications language, one would
> *not* expect it could be written in terms of itself.
And my answer was that, inasmuch as ANY language can be written in terms of itself, Stalin and GHC contradict this expectation and I don't see anything special about them in that respect. Received on Tue Jan 13 2004 - 07:32:57 CET