Lennart Augustsson wrote:
>
> On 8/17/07, Kim-Ee Yeoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How much static evaluation do you want to see
>> in Haskell?
>
> I'd like to see as much static evaluation as is practically possible.
>
Yes but not in (the language formally defined as) Haskell. Not
even in {your favorite Haskell compiler/interpreter} without -O.
With -O by all means let her rip.
Incidentally, GHC's type checker is Turing complete. You
already have as much static evaluation as is practically possible.
You already knew that.
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
>
> And as a previous poster showed, ghc does concatenate strings.
>
And Haskell (as in the current language definition) does not.
I was talking about Haskell.
Having said that, I'll concede there may be room for more than
one language here. I want syntax transparently reflecting
straightforward if slowpoke operational semantics. You want
fast, tight programs. I want fast, tight programs too, but
not by giving up the former.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Hints-for-Euler-Problem-11-tf4114963.html#a12197224
Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
