Newest at the top
| 2026-03-11 16:38:13 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | there being multiple levels of representation accuracy, and probably also multiple distinct designs at the same level |
| 2026-03-11 16:37:46 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | but in that case, "has haskell a denotational semantics" should just be answered with "for what purpose" |
| 2026-03-11 16:36:56 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | right |
| 2026-03-11 16:36:52 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | while in a language specification, you definitely want to know it if the language deviates from call-by-value |
| 2026-03-11 16:36:52 +0100 | <dminuoso> | Nothing stops you from imposing an order of some kind to your denotation. |
| 2026-03-11 16:36:39 +0100 | <dminuoso> | Well, that depends on you I think. |
| 2026-03-11 16:36:29 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | AFAIK denotational semantics also tends not to say anything about operational concerns such as order of evaluation |
| 2026-03-11 16:36:20 +0100 | prdak1 | prdak |
| 2026-03-11 16:36:19 +0100 | prdak | (~Thunderbi@user/prdak) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-03-11 16:35:42 +0100 | <dminuoso> | It seems rather like a useful vehicle to do some research, rather than defining a language. |
| 2026-03-11 16:35:39 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | s/trs$/ts/ |
| 2026-03-11 16:34:01 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | in terms of "relatively" simple categorical constructrs |
| 2026-03-11 16:33:41 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | like, one that actually models interesting structure of the language |
| 2026-03-11 16:33:20 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | perhaps "useful denotational semantics" |
| 2026-03-11 16:33:14 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | isn't it possible to attach denotational semantics to anything? |
| 2026-03-11 16:32:52 +0100 | <dminuoso> | I think a more accurate phrasing would be "It is possible to attach denotational semantics to a subset of Haskell", rather than saying that we *have* them (which might suggest that the language was signed ontop of it) |
| 2026-03-11 16:32:32 +0100 | prdak1 | (~Thunderbi@user/prdak) prdak |
| 2026-03-11 16:31:45 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | I was somehow only thinking of LambdaCase etc., which are not |
| 2026-03-11 16:31:30 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | yes you're right, for denotational semantics all that's important |
| 2026-03-11 16:31:00 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | ... I guess that types are actually relevant, even in operational semantics, depending on how you model type class resolution |
| 2026-03-11 16:30:15 +0100 | <dminuoso> | tomsmeding: What about things like all the type wizardry (TypeInType, TyFams, etc)? |
| 2026-03-11 16:29:29 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | in operational semantics you can exclude GADTs because you don't need types at runtime, but in denotational semantics the point is to retain types |
| 2026-03-11 16:28:49 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | hm, fair point |
| 2026-03-11 16:28:20 +0100 | <dminuoso> | Dunno, I can think of a few extensions that have meaning like GADTs |
| 2026-03-11 16:27:40 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | the rest is going to be either syntactic sugar or complex, ad-hoc stuff that doesn't enlighten anyone about anything |
| 2026-03-11 16:27:02 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | I suspect that all that people actually care about is a semantics of Haskell98 without the FFI |
| 2026-03-11 16:26:18 +0100 | <dminuoso> | Some researchers have published papers on this subject, but they were all to just subsets of GHC haskell. A related problem would be defining what Haskell even is in 2026 - what extensions should be included in a full denotational semantic of Haskell. |
| 2026-03-11 16:26:10 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | dminuoso: what do you mean with "defines mathematical rigor"? |
| 2026-03-11 16:20:22 +0100 | skinkitten | (~skinkitte@user/skinkitten) skinkitten |
| 2026-03-11 16:18:52 +0100 | <dminuoso> | The Haskell reports did some very vague attempts of denotational semantics, but in reality that term defines mathematical rigor - something nobody has ever done. |
| 2026-03-11 16:17:51 +0100 | <dminuoso> | mesaoptimizer: Well, in reality it only has operational semantics as defined by whatever GHC does. |
| 2026-03-11 16:01:39 +0100 | kuribas | (~user@2a02-1810-2825-6000-4935-dc75-5b6f-4493.ip6.access.telenet.be) kuribas |
| 2026-03-11 15:58:20 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | that sounds like a prompt you can give to GPT-4 :p |
| 2026-03-11 15:54:01 +0100 | haritz | (~hrtz@user/haritz) haritz |
| 2026-03-11 15:54:01 +0100 | haritz | (~hrtz@140.228.70.141) (Changing host) |
| 2026-03-11 15:54:01 +0100 | haritz | (~hrtz@140.228.70.141) |
| 2026-03-11 15:51:01 +0100 | Square | (~Square4@user/square) Square |
| 2026-03-11 15:39:42 +0100 | prdak | (~Thunderbi@user/prdak) prdak |
| 2026-03-11 15:35:20 +0100 | machinedgod | (~machinedg@d172-219-48-230.abhsia.telus.net) machinedgod |
| 2026-03-11 15:25:52 +0100 | Alex_delenda_est | (~al_test@5.139.232.240) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2026-03-11 15:16:55 +0100 | traxex | (traxex@user/traxex) traxex |
| 2026-03-11 15:09:27 +0100 | kadobanana | (~mud@user/kadoban) kadoban |
| 2026-03-11 15:09:22 +0100 | mud | (~mud@user/kadoban) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2026-03-11 15:08:48 +0100 | prdak | (~Thunderbi@user/prdak) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-03-11 15:07:59 +0100 | qqq | (~qqq@185.54.22.246) |
| 2026-03-11 14:57:37 +0100 | qqq | (~qqq@185.54.22.246) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2026-03-11 14:53:58 +0100 | Guest34 | (~Guest17@37.30.32.80) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2026-03-11 14:52:36 +0100 | <probie> | Guest34: What features do you want? |
| 2026-03-11 14:47:34 +0100 | <Guest34> | Make me a haskell script to talk with GPT-4 |
| 2026-03-11 14:45:38 +0100 | Guest34 | (~Guest17@37.30.32.80) |