Say what? You can do a lot of interesting things with decidable languages. Sure, you can't do everything, but there's a lot you can express with linear-bounded automata.
When I posted that comment I thought someone might respond this way.
The extent to which HM type inference falls short of Turing-completeness is a bigger difference between it and Prolog than almost any other conceivable language feature. I'm pretty sure you can't emulate an LBA with HM type inference. You can't emulate a PDA or even a DPDA, as far as I know. You don't even have definite iteration (for i = 1 to 10).
I'd be on pretty shaky ground saying you can't emulate a FSM with HM type inference, but I also don't see how to do it.
This is the part where my knowledge of type systems falls down, and where I'd go dig out my copy of Pierce's Types and Programming Languages if I knew which box it was in, because I know Pierce gets into the decidability of the simply typed lambda calculus and what you can do with it, but I don't remember much of that chapter. It's one of those books I need to read five or six times before I really understand it.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The extent to which HM type inference falls short of Turing-completeness is a bigger difference between it and Prolog than almost any other conceivable language feature. I'm pretty sure you can't emulate an LBA with HM type inference. You can't emulate a PDA or even a DPDA, as far as I know. You don't even have definite iteration (for i = 1 to 10).
I'd be on pretty shaky ground saying you can't emulate a FSM with HM type inference, but I also don't see how to do it.
no subject