[Haskell-cafe] Proof that Haskell is RT

[Edsko de Vries]

See "What is a purely functional language" by Sabry. Not quite a  
formal proof about *Haskell*, but then we would first need a formal  
semantics of Haskell to be able to do that proof ;-)

On 12 Nov 2008, at 10:11, Andrew Birkett wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Is a formal proof that the Haskell language is referentially  
> transparent?  Many people state "haskell is RT" without backing up  
> that claim.  I know that, in practice, I can't write any counter- 
> examples but that's a bit handy-wavy.  Is there a formal proof that,  
> for all possible haskell programs, we can replace coreferent  
> expressions without changing the meaning of a program?
>
> (I was writing a blog post about the origins of the phrase  
> 'referentially transparent' and it made me think about this)
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> - http://www.nobugs.org -
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>