[Haskell-cafe] Is Haskell well-founded? was: Clearly, Haskell is ill-founded

[Pasqualino 'Titto' Assini]

Doesn't Haskell already implement the 3-valued logic (True, False, NULL), that 
Karl Fant proposes (see papers at 
http://www.theseusresearch.com/invocation%20model.htm) as an alternative to 
centralised clock-based coordination, by postulating that every data type 
includes the bottom value?

I like his concept that:

"concurrency is simple and primitive and sequentiality is a complex and risky 
derivative of concurrency."

Can someone remind me why, in a language like Haskell that is referentially 
transparent and therefore inherently 'concurrent', we need explicit 
concurrency (threads, etc.) ?

    titto


On Monday 09 July 2007 06:48:03 Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
> drtomc:
> > I don't know if you saw the following linked off /.
> >
> > http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/13339/53/
> >
> > An amazon link for the book is here:
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Science-Reconsidered-Invocation-Expression
> >/dp/0471798142
> >
> > The basic claim appears to be that discrete mathematics is a bad
> > foundation for computer science. I suspect the subscribers to this
> > list would beg to disagree.
> >
> > Enjoy,
> >
> :-)
>
> And he's patented it...
>
>     http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5355496-description.html
>
>     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
>
>     A method and system for process expression and resolution is described.
> A first language structure comprising a possibility expression having at
> least one definition which is inherently and generally concurrent is
> provided. Further, a second language structure comprising an actuality
> expression including a fully formed input data name to be resolved is
> provided. Furthermore, a third language structure comprising an active
> expression initially having at least one invocation, the invocation
> comprising an association with a particular definition and the fully formed
> input data name of the actuality expression is provided. Subsequently, the
> process of resolving invocations begins in the active expression with fully
> formed input data names in relation to their associated definition to
> produce at least one or both of the following: (1) an invocation with a
> fully formed input data name and (2) a result data name.
>
> Interesting...
>
> -- Don
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe