🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5448@castle.ed.ac.uk> nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes:
>0 is an integer, just like 17 is. Milner-style typechecking is structural,
>so it knows about, say, integers, but not about positive integers, primes,
>and non-structural entities of this kind.
>
I think this misses the point completely.  The reason for introducing
zero-division as an example was precisely to point that Milner-style
type checking doesn't cover this case - - in fact any type checking
system that insists on operating at compile time and not at run time
(while leaving it possible to write a reasonable range of programs)
will fail to cover this case.

Also, what does structural mean in this context?  In terms of structural
types, I can easily define positive integers as a type distinct from
natural numbers including zero.  I have never come across a functional
language that would stop me doing this.  

I think it might be useful to think about why we have type systems 
(to limit the damage when we apply a function to arguments outside its domain)
rather than what a particular type system (or class of type systems)
can do.

Tom Thomson   [tom@nw.stl.stc.co.uk