On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:53:47PM +0000, Malcolm Wallace wrote: > Now, in the definition > x = x `seq` foo > one can also make the argument that, if the value of x (on the lhs of > the defn) is demanded, then of course the x on the rhs of the defn is > also demanded. There is no need for the `seq` here either. > Semantically, the definition is equivalent to > x = foo > I am arguing that, as a general rule, eliding the `seq` in such a case > is an entirely valid and correct transformation.
You're talking about demand, WHNF, etc, but the Report doesn't; it gives a simple denotational semantics for seq and recursive definitions, according to which the first definition is equivalent to x = _|_. _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
