haskell is the standard lazy functional language, so strictness ought to be called out. e.g. StateStrict rather than StateLazy. The traction that haskell is starting to get (and why I'm spending time learning it and following haskell-cafe) is not because its semantics are unsurprising to newbies. They are surprising and surprisingly powerful. A haskell that did no more than scheme would not be as interesting. I may be subject to selection bias, but I haven't seen so many references to a language in unexpected contexts since smalltalk in the mid 80's. I don't think that's because it's a language that behaves the way someone coming from another language expects.
On 1/10/07, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Yitzchak, Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 12:02:25 PM, you wrote: > Unfortunately, the current situation is that State is only > available as a lazy monad, and StateT is only available > as a strict monad. > At the very least, the two should be consistent. I > would much prefer for them both to be lazy. imho, lazy monads (as any other lazy things) is a source of beginner's confusion. therefore it may be better to provide "default" monads as strict and lazy ones - for one who knows what he wants - with a Lazy prefix, e.g. LazyST, LazyState... -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
