[Haskell-cafe] Haskell.org GSoC
John A. De Goes
john at n-brain.net
Thu Feb 19 08:52:37 EST 2009
Yes, this is indeed the point. Right now we express properties that a
type class should obey, but there is no compiler assistance to prove
or verify them.
A compiler aware of "properties" can do additional symbolic
manipulation to increase performance. Surely there has been some
research in this area already.
John A. De Goes
The Evolution of Collaboration
http://www.n-brain.net | 877-376-2724 x 101
On Feb 19, 2009, at 3:35 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> 2009/2/19 Wolfgang Jeltsch <g9ks157k at acme.softbase.org>
> Am Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2009 02:22 schrieb sylvain:
> > Haskell is a nice, mature and efficient programming language.
> > By its very nature it could also become a nice executable formal
> > specification language, provided there is tool support.
> Wouldn't it be better to achieve the goals you describe with a
> typed programming language?
> But I wonder how a dependent typed language can express certain
> properties, for example, the distributive property between the
> operation + and * in a ring or simply the fact that show(read x)==x.
> As far as I understand, a dependent type system can restrict the
> set of values for wich a function apply, but it can not express
> complex relationships between operations. My knowledge on dependent
> types is very limited. I would like to be wrong on this.
> The point is that permits the automatic checking of such properties
> at the class level (or module level) are critical, to make sure that
> derived instances agree with that. This would be very good to feel
> confident and program at higuer levels of abstraction.
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe