It could be for a subset of Haskell (probably a large one).  Haskell has some features that CAL does not (many just syntactic sugar, some not) – we’re actually working on a short paper to summarise the differences, primarily for people on this list.  Even without a one-to-one correspondence, this might work in many situations where special lower level CAL could be generated in lieu of higher-level Haskell features.  Still, you would probably be able to go a very long way with not much more than straightforward syntax transformations. Of course, use of Haskell libraries would either have to be mapped to CAL ones, or the Haskell library functions converted themselves (with this treatment applied recursively to dependees).

Lwe

On 9/26/06 10:52 PM, "Tomasz Zielonka" <tomasz.zielonka@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 09:22:21PM -0700, Luke Evans wrote:
> Here are a few 'highlights' from our feature list:
> - A lazily evaluated, strictly-typed language called CAL, with many
> similarities to Haskell

Do you think that CAL would be a good target for a Haskell compiler?
In other words, would it be a good idea to use CAL as an intermediate
language for a Haskell -> Java byte-code compiler?

Best regards
Tomasz