<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Coppin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andrewcoppin@btinternet.com">andrewcoppin@btinternet.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA1<br>
<br>
On 6/26/10 07:28 , Andrew Coppin wrote:<br>
<br>
</div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Oh, right. So you mean that as well as being able to say "Foo Bar", you can<br>
say "Foo 7", where 7 is (of course) a value rather than a type. (?)<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
A bit more than that: imagine now that you can (a) replace that 7 with a<br></div>
variable and (b) do math on it in a type declaration.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Right, I see.<br>
<br>
So is there a specific reason why Haskell isn't dependently typed then?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Or you could ask, So is there a specific reason why C isn't a functional language?</div></div>