What is Expressiveness in a Computer Language
marshall.spight at gmail.com
Thu Jun 22 16:50:52 CEST 2006
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > What prohibits us from describing an abstract type as a set of values?
> If you identify an abstract type with the set of underlying values then
> it is equivalent to the underlying representation type, i.e. there is no
I don't follow. Are you saying that a set cannot be described
intentionally? How is "the set of all objects that implement the
Foo interface" not sufficiently abstract? Is it possible you are
mixing in implementation concerns?
> >>There were papers observing this as early as 1970.
> > References?
> This is 1973, actually, but most relevant:
> James Morris
> Types Are Not Sets.
> Proc. 1st ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1973
Okay. Since this paper is in the ACM walled garden, I'll have to
wait until next week to get a look at it. But thanks for the reference.
> >>(There are also theoretic problems with the types-as-sets view, because
> >>sufficiently rich type systems can no longer be given direct models in
> >>standard set theory. For example, first-class polymorphism would run
> >>afoul the axiom of foundation.)
> > There is no reason why we must limit ourselves to "standard set theory"
> > any more than we have to limit ourselves to standard type theory.
> > Both are progressing, and set theory seems to me to be a good
> > choice for a foundation. What else would you use?
> I'm no expert here, but Category Theory is a preferred choice in many
> areas of PLT.
More information about the Python-list