Dear Haskell implementors,
How do you think, is the program (1) equivalent to (2)
in the meaning of Haskell-98 ?
(1) (\ x -> (if p x then foo (g x) else foo (h x))
where
p ... g ... h ... foo ...
)
(2) (\ x -> foo ((if p x then g x else h x)
where
p ... g ... h ... foo ...
)
)
If it is equivalent, then does it make sense for a compiler to
convert (1) to (2): to separate a common `factor' of the if-branches
?
The reason for this may be, for example, that the result printing
of (f x) is more `lazy' in (2) than in (1):
the part of foo may print immediately and (g x) or (h x) may print
long after.
This is a difference in behavior, it does not effect the computation
meaning.
I have a large program which is easily written in the style of (1),
(and in many places it sets `case' instead of `if').
Annoyingly, it prints out in a not a lazy manner.
It can be rewritten in the form of (2), but with effort, and it will
look less plain.
So, maybe, this is a business of a compiler?
Copy, please, the possible answer to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------
Serge Mechveliani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
