Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!titan.rice.edu!rama
From: rama@titan.rice.edu (Ramarao Kanneganti)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
Subject: Re: Intermediate Codes for Functional Languages
Message-ID: <1990Dec18.174225.27885@rice.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 90 17:42:25 GMT
References: <5455@rex.cs.tulane.edu> <1856@oravax.UUCP> <5477@rex.cs.tulane.edu>
Sender: news@rice.edu (News)
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Lines: 24

In article <5477@rex.cs.tulane.edu> fs@caesar.cs.tulane.edu (Frank Silbermann) writes:
>To be sure, this means that our domain is bigger
>than strictly (no pun intended) necessary.
>However, this is true in any case, since we usually
>do not permit definition of every possible
>continuous function, either.  (E.g., in many languages
>it is impossible to define the parallel boolean `OR',
>--- which would return TRUE if either argument is TRUE,
>even if the other is bottom).
>
>	Frank Silbermann	fs@cs.tulane.edu
>	Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisianna  USA


Usually, it advantageous to have the domain completely matching the
language we are defining. In the case of coalesced products, it can be
embedded as a projection of the product domain. But, the sequential
functions are not embeddable as a continous retraction of the
continuous function space. Still, people use the continuous model to
denote the meanings, as there is no other model that is fully abstract
with respect to sequential function space.

Regards,
Rama Rao ( rama@rice.edu )