pase@ogcvax.UUCP (07/07/87)
In article <glacier.17113> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: > > The trouble with this idea is that we have no good way to express >algorithms "abstractly". [...] Well, I'm not sure just where the limits are, but polymorphic types can go a long way towards what you have been describing. It seems that a uniform notation for operators + the ability to define additional operators + polymorphically typed structures are about all you need. Several functional languages already provide an adequate basis for these features. One such language is called LML, or Lazy ML. Current language definitions tend to concentrate on the novel features rather than attempt to make LML a full-blown "production" language, and therefore may be missing some of your favorite features. However, my point is that we may well be closer to your objective than some of us realize. I apologize for the brevity of this article -- if I have been too vague, send me e-mail and I will be more specific. -- Doug Pase -- ...ucbvax!tektronix!ogcvax!pase or pase@Oregon-Grad.csnet