Vimal wrote:
I was surprised to find out that the following piece of code:
length [1..] 10
isnt lazily evaluated! I wouldnt expect this to be a bug, but
in this case, shouldnt the computation end when the length function
evaluation goes something like:
10 + length [11..]
That's the
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 06:28:59PM +0200, apfelmus wrote:
I mean, Haskell does not magically detect that the 32(64)-bit integer
(10 + length [11..]) :: Int is bigger than 10 :: Int .
That's partly because it's not true.
There are arbitrarily large finite lists for which the equivalent is
Prelude 10 + length (replicate maxBound 'a')
-2147483639
Ah, nice example!
If you note, this doesnt allocate memory at all! Very less footprint!
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On 2007-09-24, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
lengthNat [1..] 10
Couldn't be clearer, and can be made to work perfectly. If anyone does
want to pick up the lazy naturals work, I can send over the code (or
write it yourself - its not hard!)
Um... isn't
