Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!xlink.net!news.ppp.de!news.Hanse.DE!lutzifer.hanse.de!wavehh.hanse.de!cracauer
From: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer)
Subject: Re: [history question] Why was typed lambda calculus not used?
Message-ID: <1994Nov8.073618.17510@wavehh.hanse.de>
Organization: The poor LISPers' hacking kitchen
References: <PP000547.94Nov5004912@bedlam.interramp.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 94 07:36:18 GMT
Lines: 18

pp000547@interramp.com writes:


>  Church's typed lambda calculus, published in 1940, seems to be at
>least as interesting as his type-free lambda calculus published four
>years earlier, yet the various implementations of Lisp that I find
>today seem to be based exclusively on Church's type-free lambda
>calculus.

>  Is this merely because versions of Lisp that are based on Church's
>typed lambda calculus exist but I am not aware of the fact, or is it
>because the first developers of Lisp debated the question and decided
>to base Lisp on Church's type-free lambda calculus instead of basing
>it on his typed lambda calculus?

In a way SML is such a beast. Uses an Algol-like syntax, but otherwise
it's a lot like a strongly typed Lisp.
-- 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%}- Martin             Smile!  :-)
