Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!rex!caesar!fs
From: fs@caesar.cs.tulane.edu (Frank Silbermann)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
Subject: Re: Intermediate Codes for Functional Languages
Message-ID: <5487@rex.cs.tulane.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 90 16:32:15 GMT
References: <1856@oravax.UUCP> <5477@rex.cs.tulane.edu> <1990Dec18.174225.27885@rice.edu>
Sender: news@rex.cs.tulane.edu
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Lines: 26

In article <1990Dec18.174225.27885@rice.edu> rama@titan.rice.edu (Ramarao Kanneganti) writes:

>	Usually, it advantageous to have the domain
>	completely matching the language we are defining.
(i.e. with no elements undenotable via the syntax)

>	In the case of coalesced products,		(i.e. "strict" cons)
>	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.

Aside from a desire to avoid unnecessary complexity,
what are some of the advantages of using a domain
that contains only those elements which can be denoted from the language?
(I ask this because sometimes adding extra elements
can make some aspects simpler -- just as judicious use
of "don't cares" can simplify manufacture of a logic gate.)

Will the advantages still hold, even when other constructors
(i.e function abstraction) _do_ result in extra domain elements?

	Frank Silbermann	fs@cs.tulane.edu
	Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisianna  USA