Well. I have a question. Why are sets not implemented in Haskell? . I have read a bit how the compiler is made. Ok lists are easier to implement but sets could have been implemented too. So why didn't the implementors not do it?
Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Cast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Scott J." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 1:13 AM Subject: Re: Question about the use of an inner forall > "Scott J." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > I am going to stop this discussion . What counts for me at this > > moment is that I know how it works. > > Alright. > > > I thank everybody who replied to my email. > > You're welcome. > > > As for the discussion about Curry Howard isomorphism and more about > > type theory, I shall gladly discuss these things further but than in > > private email. > > Do you mean ``but in private email''? Why? I think that, because of > the strong mathematical basis underlying Haskell, these things are > on-topic. So, why not let the list profit from the discussion? > > > Hey, I hope really that I know how it works but this seems to be > > confirmed in these emails. > > > I left Ocamel for Haskell for it's more functional approach. > > > I think documentation about the features extending Haskell 98 is > > very needed for those who want only to program with the > > language Haskell. > > True; unfortunately, too many extensions are documented only in > technical papers... > > > Thx for all replies > > > Scott > > Jon Cast > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
