[Haskell-cafe] Bool as type class to serve EDSLs.

[Jason Dagit]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Sebastian Fischer <
sebf at informatik.uni-kiel.de> wrote:

> On Jun 1, 2009, at 12:17 AM, Henning Thielemann wrote:
>
>  On Thu, 28 May 2009, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
>>
>>  i use another approach which imho is somewhat closer to interpretation
>>> of logical operations in dynamic languages (lua, ruby, perl): [...]
>>>
>>
>> The absence of such interpretations and thus the increased type safety was
>> one of the major the reasons for me to move from scripting languages to
>> Haskell.
>>
>
> Do you argue that overloading logical operations like this in Haskell
> sacrifices type safety? Could programs "go wrong" [1] that use such
> abstractions?


If I understand your point correctly, you are suggesting that such programs
are still type safe.  I agree with the claim that such features are
detrimental in practice though.  Instead of lumping it with type safety,
then what do we call it?  I think I've heard of languages that do such
conversions as "weakly" typed.  Really the issue is with implicit
conversions, right?

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20090601/8f47f9a0/attachment.html