🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1593@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>OK, try this.  In mathematics you don't have to describe the types of
>objects unless the type is important.  In statically typed languages,
>you have to declare the type whether it has any relevance or not (or
>fix it at compile time whether it is really knowable or not).  In
>mathematics or dynamically typed languages you can describe the
>concept of a set or a sequence, and operations over those data
>structures, without refering to the "type" of elements.  For example
>in math you could say
>
>  If f is a function and s is a sequence, then map(f,s) is the
>  sequence t such that for all i . t[i] = f(s[i]).
>
>In a Icon (a dynamically typed language) you could define
>
>  procedure map(f,s)
>  local t,i
>  t := list(*s)
>  every i := 1 to *s do t[i] := f(s[i])
>  return t
>  end
>
>Try to write this function in a statically typed language so that it
>has all the generality of the math and Icon versions.  (Actually, the
>math version works for infinite sequences and the Icon one doesn't.
>There are languages that fix that...)  No, forget the challenge.

Sorry, I can't forget it.  I'll just have to make another plug for
polymorhic type deduction.  Here's a version of map in Haskell (ML
would be very similar):

  map f [] = []
  map f (x:xs) = f x : map f xs

This also handles infinite lists (of course).  Haskell is statically
typed, and from the definition of map the compiler deduces (i.e. you 
don't have to write it, but you can if you like):

  map :: (a->b) -> [a] -> [b]

Just because some statically typed languages requires you to declare
the type whether it has any relevance or not does not mean that this is
true for all of them.

	-- Lennart Augustsson
[This signature is intentionally left blank.]