unknown
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
I what sense is Aldor's type system "not functional"?
Do you mean in the sense that evaluating a type
expression in Aldor might have some side-effect? E.g.
a:Funny(Integer)
where 'Funny' is some type constructor. As far as I know,
in both Aldor and SPAD this is not possible. Types in
Aldor and SPAD are static - evaluated a compile time -
not during run time.
=20
are functional (and static!) in this sense.
=20
Regards,
Bill Page.
Do you mean in the sense that evaluating a type
expression in Aldor might have some side-effect? E.g.
a:Funny(Integer)
where 'Funny' is some type constructor. As far as I know,
in both Aldor and SPAD this is not possible. Types in
Aldor and SPAD are static - evaluated a compile time -
not during run time.
=20
That should not matter; and if it does, it is a bug! =20
=20
Do you really want a type system whose language is not
functional? Notice, that I'm not saying the term language
should be functional. I'm talking of the type (sub-)
language. How do you work with a type system whose
constructors do not evaluate the same arguments to the
same value?=20
I think Ralf is wrong. Both SPAD and Aldor's type systems=20
Do you really want a type system whose language is not
functional? Notice, that I'm not saying the term language
should be functional. I'm talking of the type (sub-)
language. How do you work with a type system whose
constructors do not evaluate the same arguments to the
same value?=20
are functional (and static!) in this sense.
=20
Regards,
Bill Page.