Dunno about safety results, but
https://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/haskell2010/ exists (next revision
expected in 2020 iirc).
https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/latest/docs/html/users_guide/lang.html
documents ghc's extensions to the standard, and
https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/latest/docs/html/users_guide/bugs.html#ha...
its deviations from the standard, some of which will likely be in the next
standard.
Some things, such as how typeclasses are implemented, are not specified in
the standard so that alternative implementations can choose to implement
them differently. ghc uses dictionary / record parameters; jhc did whole
program compilation, so all non-polymorphically-recursive typeclass methods
could be resolved at compile time (I don't know offhand how it handled
polymorphic recursion).
On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Todd Wilson
Why doesn't Haskell (or at least "core" Haskell) have a formal definition and safety result the way Standard ML does [1], [2]? Is it just that no one has gotten around to producing them, or because there are fundamental difficulties that stand in the way of completing such a project?
Todd Wilson
[1] Robin Milner, Mads Tofte, Robert Harper, and David MacQueen. The Definition of Standard ML (Revised). MIT Press, 1997. [2] Daniel K. Lee , Karl Crary , Robert Harper, "Mechanizing the Metatheory of Standard ML", http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dklee/tslf/
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
-- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allbery.b@gmail.com ballbery@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net