[PRL] the "success" of types

[Mitchell Wand]

BTW:  Matthias wrote:

4a. In a functional language/program, the channels are completely
> explicit even for the smallest unit of abstraction: a function. Your
> types say what comes in; your result types say what comes out. You can
> check this. And over the past couple of decades we have learned that
> it's easy to communicate even polymorphic values along those channels.
>

It's worth remembering that this doesn't necessarily make the channels
entirely easy to understand.  In the presence of higher-order functions,
it's quite difficult to figure out what flows into what.  That's why 0CFA is
O(n^3).

It's also why in Haskell, you always declare the type of every function.  If
you didn't, figuring what flowed into what would drive you crazy.

--Mitch
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed