Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 11:07 -0400, Sandro Magi wrote: >> Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: >> > [...] >>> This leads me to the question: should we add the monad concept to BitC? >> As an alternative, there is now even a Haskell dialect with an effect >> system in place of monads: >> >> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/DDC > > Yes, but that doesn't address the objectives that adding a monad system > would resolve: > > 1. Direct translation of existing haskell code. > 2. Formal analyzability. > > However, I neglected to consider the impact of lazy vs. eager > processing, and that is quite a major difference.
A substantial fraction of existing Haskell code does not rely on laziness. The semantics of Haskell don't actually require an implementation to be lazy; they allow it to be (although some existing code will of course run out of memory if evaluated strictly). -- David-Sarah Hopwood _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
