yep, that was the idea. (Well, that, and I'm hoping that once Ruby hackers try Haskell, they'll be forever corrupted by the Functional side of the force.)
Is this true? I was under the impression that the Haskell standard didn't formally specify its type semantics. Do works like http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mpj/thih/ "count" (i.e., is it the canonical reason we presume Haskell's type system is provably sound)? Honest question.
5 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 26.6 ms ] threadIs this true? I was under the impression that the Haskell standard didn't formally specify its type semantics. Do works like http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mpj/thih/ "count" (i.e., is it the canonical reason we presume Haskell's type system is provably sound)? Honest question.