[Haskell-cafe] Re: [Off topic] Proving an impossibility

[Jon Fairbairn]

Miguel Mitrofanov <miguelimo38 at yandex.ru> writes:

>> > It reminds me of a paper by Knuth, where he states that
>> > "goto" statement is necessary; don't remember the title,
>> > however.
>> I don't remember needing a goto in Haskell...
>
> Well, for imperative languages, of course.

I think my point is that it requires a narrow definition of
imperative language; you don't need gotos if the other
control structures are rich enough¹, imperative or not.

[1] the proof of which is, allow first-class functions...

-- 
Jón Fairbairn                                 Jon.Fairbairn at cl.cam.ac.uk