On 22-Mar-2000, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not convinced that it [hseq] should exist at all. Much can be archieved
> by adding strictness flags to data definitions, or at most suitable
> problem-specific functions / classes. It should not be *very* important
> to evaluate exactly what one has in mind - the essence of laziness
> is that it is not harmful - except perfomance... It's good when the
> compiler can infer itself where laziness can be safely eliminated.
`hseq' would sometimes be useful in conjunction with exception handling,
for ensuring that some sub-expression was fully evaluated within
the scope of an exception handler, rather than being lazily evaluated
with some parts of the evaluation occurring outside the scope of
the exception handler.
--
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
