<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mathematically Structured but not Necessarily Functional Programming</title>
	<atom:link href="http://math.andrej.com/2009/05/29/mathematically-structured-but-not-necessarily-functional-programming/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://math.andrej.com/2009/05/29/mathematically-structured-but-not-necessarily-functional-programming/</link>
	<description>Mathematics for computers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:14:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mathematics and Computation » Mathematically Structured but not &#8230;</title>
		<link>http://math.andrej.com/2009/05/29/mathematically-structured-but-not-necessarily-functional-programming/comment-page-1/#comment-11890</link>
		<dc:creator>Mathematics and Computation » Mathematically Structured but not &#8230;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 15:58:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://math.andrej.com/?p=217#comment-11890</guid>
		<description>[...] See the rest here:  Mathematics and Computation » Mathematically Structured but not &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] See the rest here:  Mathematics and Computation » Mathematically Structured but not &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: speleologic</title>
		<link>http://math.andrej.com/2009/05/29/mathematically-structured-but-not-necessarily-functional-programming/comment-page-1/#comment-11886</link>
		<dc:creator>speleologic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 09:10:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://math.andrej.com/?p=217#comment-11886</guid>
		<description>The Ynot project is worth looking at: http://ynot.cs.harvard.edu. Although in theory whatever you could write in Ocaml you could write in Coq+Ynot, in practice it is probably not so easy. RZ has an advantage for the programmer who does not need to provide a formal proof of correctness.

As for the connection between effects and constructive reasoning, there is a point which I think is often overlooked by constructivists, that at least for some effects there is a corresponding Curry-Howard-isomorphic logic : classical logic. An example is the lambda-mu-calculus of Parigot. One problem with computational classical logic, however, is that it is not clear how to take it to dependent types.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Ynot project is worth looking at: <a href="http://ynot.cs.harvard.edu" rel="nofollow">http://ynot.cs.harvard.edu</a>. Although in theory whatever you could write in Ocaml you could write in Coq+Ynot, in practice it is probably not so easy. RZ has an advantage for the programmer who does not need to provide a formal proof of correctness.</p>
<p>As for the connection between effects and constructive reasoning, there is a point which I think is often overlooked by constructivists, that at least for some effects there is a corresponding Curry-Howard-isomorphic logic : classical logic. An example is the lambda-mu-calculus of Parigot. One problem with computational classical logic, however, is that it is not clear how to take it to dependent types.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
