>Joe Fasel wrote:
>> Actually, I think we were originally thinking of laziness, rather
>> than nonstrictness, and weren't considering languages like Id as
>> part of our domain, but Arvind and Nikhil (quite correctly) convinced
>> us that the semantic distinction of strictness versus nonstrictness
>> should be our concern, rather than the operational notions of
>> eagerness and laziness.
"Frank A. Christoph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Please elucidate. Where does this difference become important? What impact
>did it have on the language?
It is definitely important in parallel processing, where you may want to
spawn off activities speculatively, to utilize idle processors, and kill off
these activities later if it is discovered that their results are not
needed. This yields nonstrict behaviour if implemented correctly, but it is
not lazy.
Björn Lisper
