What do you mean by "literals are strict"? Strictness is a semantic property of functions, and while literals can be overloaded to be functions I don't know what you mean.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Keith Sheppard<[email protected]> wrote: > Haskell's numeric literals are strict. You wouldn't want that to > change right? It seems to me that having sum and product be strict is > consistent with this. > > -Keith > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Thomas Davie<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 17 Jun 2009, at 13:32, Yitzchak Gale wrote: >> >>> Henk-Jan van Tuyl wrote: >>>> >>>> reverse >>>> maximum >>>> minimum >>> >>> Oh yes, please fix those also! >> >> import Prelude.Strict? >> >> Honestly, these functions are ones that I've *deffinately* used lazy >> versions of, in fact, in the cases of minimum/maximum I've even used ones >> that are super-lazy and parallel using unamb. >> >> It would be extremely odd to randomly decide "most people would want this to >> be strict" based on no knowledge of what they're actually doing. Instead, >> why don't we stand by the fact that haskell is a lazy language, and that the >> functions we get by default are lazy, and then write a strict prelude as I >> suggest above to complement the lazy version. >> >> Bob >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >> > > > > -- > keithsheppard.name > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
