[Haskell-cafe] If you'd design a Haskell-like language, what would you do different?

[Ketil Malde]

Jerzy Karczmarczuk <jerzy.karczmarczuk at unicaen.fr> writes:

> and the source of it power" - if I might cite you - is that we don't see
> the difference between an object and the process which creates it.

Interestingly, according to Wikipedia's article on "type system":

  A type system associates a type with each computed value.

but later cites Pierce:

  a tractable syntactic framework for classifying phrases according to
  the kinds of values they compute

While the former might be said to avoid _|_ by defining it to not be a
"value" that is computed, the latter clearly must include it, as a
the computation of a "phrase" might not terminate (as longs as the
language is Turing-complete, of course).

Anyway, I think also non-lazy languages has bottom inhabiting their
types, it's just that since it leads more immediately to failure, it's
not usually taken into account.

-k
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants