Hello Michael,
> Your remark reminds me that I wanted to suggest a further
> restriction for local pattern definitions in Curry which solves
> these problems:
>
> All variables occurring in lhs patterns in some let/where
> should occur at most once in a lhs of a local pattern declaration.
>
> This restriction would forbid programs like
>
> f x = coin where coin = 1
> coin = 2
>
> and also your functions f1,f2,f3.
>
> Do you agree or is this too restrictive?
I would not object to this restriction. I think the examples can all be rewritten by lifting the overlapping declarations to the toplevel. Eventually a "trivial" declaration of the form
where x = y
has to be added to preserve the sharing of the local declaration. Extending your example to the case where the sharing of coin is used:
f x = g coin coin where coin = 1; coin = 2
this would have to be rewritten as
coin = 1
coin = 2
f x = y + y where y = coin
(where only the uninitiated would try to "simplify" this to f x = g coin coin.)
However, I'm a bit more worried about another point, viz. the syntactic sugar of interpreting f = g as f x = g x in case f and g are of functional type. This makes the sharing of a functional result from a non-deterministic function impossible, except if I can convince the type system into using a more general type (i.e. \forall a.a) to the local variable. With your proposed restriction, we still have for
g = incr
g = decr
f4 x = h (h x) where h = g
that f4 3 has the solutions 1, 3, and 5 in constrast to the example above which has only 2 solutions for f 3. If I really want to exclude the solution 3 (i.e. make a consistent choice for g in the program), I have to resort to something like
f5 h g x = h g g x
and
f5 (.) g 3
Regards
Wolfgang
Received on Di Dez 01 1998 - 17:35:00 CET
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Do Feb 01 2024 - 07:15:05 CET