I agree. Computation on the type level does not imply computation on the value level.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/18/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Tim Chevalier</b> <<a href="mailto:catamorphism@gmail.com">
catamorphism@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">On 8/17/07, Kim-Ee Yeoh <<a href="mailto:a.biurvOir4@asuhan.com">
a.biurvOir4@asuhan.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Incidentally, GHC's type checker is Turing complete. You<br>> already have as much static evaluation as is practically possible.<br>> You already knew that.<br>><br>
<br>I don't see how the first statement implies the second.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Tim<br><br>--<br>Tim Chevalier * <a href="http://catamorphism.org">catamorphism.org</a> * Often in error, never in doubt<br>"It's never too early to start drilling holes in your car." -- Tom Magliozzi
<br>_______________________________________________<br>Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br><a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe">
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br></blockquote></div><br>