[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Typing and semantics [dynamic vs. static typing]

To: "'John Clements'" <address@hidden>, Ken Shan <address@hidden>
Subject: RE: Typing and semantics [dynamic vs. static typing]
From: "Kevin S. Millikin" <address@hidden>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:03:05 -0600
Cc: "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
Organization: ATC
Reply-to: "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
Sender: address@hidden

On Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:05 PM, John Clements 
[SMTP:clements@brinckerhoff.org] wrote:
>
> No one seems to be refuting the point that a difference between ML 
and
> Haskell is the inability to formulate a reduction semantics that
> ignores the type proof.

Well, no, I guess nobody's refuting that point.

I'm having a little trouble imagining what sort of semantics that 
ignores the type proof you *could* give to ad hoc polymorphism.

Another (or is it the same?) difference between ML and Haskell is that 
Haskell allows overloading via typeclasses.

-- Kevin

Prev by Date: Re: Typing and semantics [dynamic vs. static typing]
Next by Date: Re: Typing and semantics [dynamic vs. static typing]
Previous by thread: Re: Typing and semantics [dynamic vs. static typing]
Next by thread: More on dispatching by function return type
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread