Tackling the atrocious squad

[Lennart Augustsson]

And what's the denotational semantics of type classes?  As far as I know it
has never been done, because it's very complex.

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Achim Schneider <barsoap at web.de> wrote:

> Well, it's an unformalised and not much thought about out-of-the-tub
> idea, but here it goes:
>
> Let there be a monad/typeclass representing the denotional semantics of
> Haskell
>
> Do some instances of it, called e.g. GHC or Hugs.
>
> so, instead of
>
> main :: IO ()
>
> we have
>
> main :: (Haskell h) => h (IO ())
>
> or, if you need some feature of the Haskell runtime system XYZ
>
> main :: XYZ (IO ())
>
> or even
>
> main :: (FFI h) => h (IO ())
>
> and
>
> main :: (SomeLib h) => h (IO ())
>
> , and then go on and define every single language construct as part of
> this type hierarchy, and define some syntactic sugar to make stuff look
> exactly like haskell '98 if you're just hacking away.
>
> I especially like the metacircularity of this approach, and the fact
> that every Model (read: implementation) of Haskell would have to admit
> that it is only a Model (read: instance) of Haskell.
>
> --
> (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
> past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
> hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
> signature prohibited.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/attachments/20080507/9a681ad4/attachment.htm