* Am 30.03.07 schrieb Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias:
>
> Let's think for a moment that coin could be automatically transformed
> to
>
> coin = [0,1]
>
> so then, in any sane semantics (both operational or denotational) the
> equation
>
> let x = coin in (x,x) == (coin,coin)
>
> does hold. This is the kind of treatment I'd like to have. I'm sorry I
> haven't fully developed it yet.
Hello Emilio,
looks like you're essentially aiming at a monadic semantics of
non-determnism.
The above equation could also be formulated like this
[(x,x) | x <- coin] == uncurry zip (coin,coin)
However, using the list monad to model non-determnism seems to have
never been appreciated much by the FLP community because disjunction
realized as concatenation is biased.
Best regards,
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
curry mailing list
curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry
Received on Mi Apr 11 2007 - 11:56:25 CEST