[TYPES] rewriting of typed combinator expressions

[Robby Findler]

At Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:00:20 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> > If somebody asks me (or you) to write an interpreter for a functional 
> > programming
> > language, I suspect we both would come up with something like 
> > (obviously your
> > versions would have more brackets):
> 
> But why would I even start with the premise of wanting to write an 
> interpreter? 

One reason to prefer the big-step as interpreter semantics is that it
is directly executable (which brings lots of benefits: easy
experimentation, test suites, etc etc). Of course, and perhaps in
support of Matthias's point, the one-step semantics is just as
executable. So, let me take this chance and to plug PLT Redex, one tool
that takes such semantics and executes them:

  http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~robby/pubs/papers/rta2004-mfff.pdf

Robby