On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:19 +0100, Bayley, Alistair wrote: > > From: Jerzy Karczmarczuk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Bernard Pope wrote: > > > > >I'll be a little bit pedantic here. Haskell, the language definition, > > >does not prescribe lazy evaluation. It says that the language is > > >non-strict. Lazy evaluation is an implementation technique which > > >satisfies non-strict semantics, but it is not the only > > technique which > > >does this. > > > > > > > > This pedantry is renewed periodically. > > > > It is a pity that nobody ever writes anything about that other > > methods of implementation of non-strictness, nor about the > > languages which use those methods. > > > > I believe it might do some good to people who learn functional > > programming in general, and Haskell in particular. > > Any takers? > > > Not a taker (yet - where can I find information about non-lazy > implementation of non-strict languages? From Google so far: speculative > evaluation (Eager Haskell), call-by-name vs call-by-need.) > > Wikipedia frustratingly hints that "other evaluation strategies are > possible", but that's all it says: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-strict_programming_language
I should have mentioned this paper: @article{Tremblay01, author= {G. Tremblay}, title= {Lenient evaluation is neither strict nor lazy}, journal= {Computer Languages}, volume= {26}, number= {1}, pages= {43--66}, year= {2001}, } (however I think he says that Haskell is lazy!) Cheers, Bernie. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe