User loginNavigation |
Unifying map and mapM through subtyping?In a Haskell-like language, could we unify It seems that such conversions aren't as problematic as a general subtyping system, since proving confluence isn't a problem. We'd have to do something to prevent the typechecker from looping indefinitely trying to unify Are there other difficulties that this approach might cause? What sort of trickery might be needed to convince an optimizer over a typed intermediate language that the Identity introduction and elimination functions should have no operational effect? (Furthermore, is it true that they should have no effect, or is there a useful distinction between By Douglas McClean at 2010-02-26 02:58 | LtU Forum | previous forum topic | next forum topic | other blogs | 4931 reads
|
Browse archives
Active forum topics |
Recent comments
6 weeks 14 hours ago
6 weeks 18 hours ago
6 weeks 18 hours ago
28 weeks 1 day ago
32 weeks 3 days ago
34 weeks 1 day ago
34 weeks 1 day ago
36 weeks 5 days ago
41 weeks 3 days ago
41 weeks 3 days ago