I would have to say exactly the same. Thanks

]]>It may also be worth mentioning that, in the future, what is currently called SF will be divided into two volumes. The first will cover the basics of defining things and reasoning in Coq, and the second will cover the semantics of programming languages. Additional volumes are also planned. While it isn’t getting shorter, perhaps having emphasizing the natural division in topics in the middle will make it seem a little more approachable.

]]>Steven, I could swear that when I started writing this post a few days ago SF 4.0 was still “in development” :-)

]]>That’s an interesting post – and a timely one for me. I’m most of the way through my 3rd run through SF, and having been trying to work out which of Coq’Art and CPDT to follow it up with.

I’m also considering looking at Programs and Proofs (http://ilyasergey.net/pnp/), which you might be interested in. The latest version of SF covers reflection more than the old version, but I’m interested to see how far PnP goes with that.

Cheers,

Dave

]]>> | Cons x xs, Cons y ys > Cons (f x y) (zipWith f xs ys)

should be

> | Cons x xs, Cons y ys => Cons (f x y) (zipWith f xs ys)

]]>https://stackoverflow.com/questions/384797/implications-of-foldr-vs-foldl-or-foldl

]]>