Re: Specific denotations for pure types

Conal Elliott writes:

Oh -- not one version of Int for 32-bit execution and another version for 64-bit execution?  Seen on #haskell today:

<mux> > maxBound :: Int <lambdabot>   9223372036854775807

I've always been opposed to having Int "built in" (in contrast to having Int32 and Int64 defined in a library somewhere). It's much cleaner to have Integer as the language integer. A reference implementation of Int8 (for brevity!) could be written with (off the top of my head) data Int8 = Int8 !Bool !Bool !Bool !Bool !Bool !Bool !Bool !Bool which would specify the semantics exactly. -- Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk