On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Sebastian Fischer < sebf@informatik.uni-kiel.de> wrote:
On Jun 1, 2009, at 12:17 AM, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
i use another approach which imho is somewhat closer to interpretation
of logical operations in dynamic languages (lua, ruby, perl): [...]
The absence of such interpretations and thus the increased type safety was one of the major the reasons for me to move from scripting languages to Haskell.
Do you argue that overloading logical operations like this in Haskell sacrifices type safety? Could programs "go wrong" [1] that use such abstractions?
If I understand your point correctly, you are suggesting that such programs are still type safe. I agree with the claim that such features are detrimental in practice though. Instead of lumping it with type safety, then what do we call it? I think I've heard of languages that do such conversions as "weakly" typed. Really the issue is with implicit conversions, right? Jason