>>5
That expression of fix, however neat it may be, wont terminate when I try to use it. What exactly does
x = f x do in haskell?
>>8
These types are finite and recursive. You just can't write them out in the simplistic way, like how you can't pin down a circle on a flat strip of tape. Haskell can't do recursive types. And I wish it could. The real y combinator would be:
let y f = f (y f)
Scheme has the flexibility of being untyped, but this isn't as short in scheme because of strict evaluation and no implicit currying.
(define (y f) (lambda args (apply f (cons (y f) args))))
>>12
And the not an instance of show ain't the error I'm gettin, which is why I don't try any further.