John Hughes wrote: > ... Function bodies are clearly evaluated many times, once for each > call, but non-function bindings should be evaluated at most once to respect > call-by-need semantics. Isn't this a very fragile distinction? It seems so susceptible to routine program transformations by both programmers and compilers (e.g., lambda lifting/unlifting, which can change a non-function finding into a function binding and vice versa). Also, I agree with Andreas Rossberg's observation: > ... the Haskell Report ... does not even > demand call-by-need evaluation (it only speaks of non-strict > semantics). Nikhil _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism Robert Ennals
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism Robert Ennals
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism Jeffrey R. Lewis
- RE: Implict parameters and monomorphism Simon Peyton-Jones
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism John Hughes
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism Erik Meijer
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism Rishiyur S. Nikhil
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism Andreas Rossberg
- RE: Implict parameters and monomorphism Simon Peyton-Jones
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism Jeffrey R. Lewis
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism Lennart Augustsson
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism John Hughes
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism John Hughes
- RE: Implict parameters and monomorphism John Hughes
- RE: Implict parameters and monomorphism Simon Peyton-Jones
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism Lennart Augustsson
- Re: Implict parameters and monomorphism Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk