|
@GabrielG439 | |||||
|
Why Dhall advertises the absence of Turing-completeness:
haskellforall.com/2020/01/why-dh…
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
-_-
@boarders__
|
17. sij |
|
You write the phrase '“total” (i.e. not Turing-complete)'. This is quite misleading; if by Turing complete you mean the language can implement a Turing machine then totality does not forbid Turing completeness as McBride explains here: personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/conor.mcbride/…
|
||
|
|
||
|
Gabriel Gonzalez
@GabrielG439
|
17. sij |
|
Usually I understand "Turing-complete" to mean that the language can not only implement but also run the Turing-machine
|
||
|
|
||