From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mark Carroll <mtbc@bcs.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Haskell, anyone?
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 23:05:09 +0000
Organization: none
Message-ID: <87mvue50ey.fsf@ixod.org>
References: <c6ac0d2f-52af-4aa6-ba6f-34f61e3c93e8@googlegroups.com>
	<dd1ada14-493d-44fc-a081-3a69515f2702@googlegroups.com>
	<n2b23f$aom$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="1b3e5cba9e4d07a53741e6f3d1717925";
	logging-data="9186"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19mBeAYu7P5KRjJIkxO9M/X"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ur3F4ppNekSs7NhUeoMZXSZPx90=
	sha1:1jT5naaduqoUeuizfK9WSRr4d7k=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:28377
Date: 2015-11-15T23:05:09+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 15 Nov 2015, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
(snip)
> On Ada, One of the best features is the ability to define subtypes very
> easily. I have not seen any other language with this feature. (one has
> to make Class in other languages, and define all the operations each time).
>
> This is for me what makes Ada for me. One can define a type
> that matche the range of the physical quantity being modeled.
> This helps catch many errors.
>
> Can one do this in Haskell?  Say define a new integer subtype that
> can only take values from only 1...20.  And have the compiler
> and run time check for this?

One could do subrange types back with Modula-3 too! (Possibly also
earlier Pascal-like languages.) I /can't/ think off-hand how to do this
easily with Haskell (at least without unusual extensions) but I /think/
that Idris, that I'd mentioned as illuminating a possible way forward,
would probably make you work a bit harder for subtypes, in the theorem
proving for dependent types, but with the payback of allowing a rather
wider range of kinds of subtype constraint. Unfortunately the leading
edge of compiler-checked correctness still makes one sweat for that
final thumbs-up.

-- Mark