Simon Marlow wrote:
> Interesting. You're absolutely right, GHC doesn't respect the
> report, on something as basic as sections! The translation we use
> is
>
> (e op) ==> (op) e
>
> once upon a time, when the translation in the report was originally
> written (before seq was added) this would have been exactly
> identical to \x -> e op x, so the definition in the report was
> probably used for consistency with left sections.
>
> We could make GHC respect the report, but we'd have to use
>
> (e op) ==> let z = e in \x -> z op x
>
> to retain sharing without relying on full laziness.
We should keep in mind that this was changed deliberately in ghc 6.6,
in order to support "postfix" operators.
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/6.6/html/users_guide/release-6-6.html
The motivating example was the factorial operator which can currently
be written as (n !) in ghc-Haskell.
Cheers,
Bertram
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
