John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Any strong feeling about order-of-evaluation issues?

And short-circuiting of  the implicit and. I think
f() < g() < h() is re-written by the compiler as
f() < ($temp = g()) && $temp < h(). Note that C#
defines the order of evaluation as strictly left to
right. And I can see some merits in that.

Is "chained" associativity specific to this (functions return Bool and are ANDed pairwise), or can it be used for other things like ganging $a+$b+$c+$d to a single +(*$L,*$R,Vector [EMAIL PROTECTED]) function that doesn't keep re-allocating and copying memory but does it all in one shot?

Why the complicated sig? Note that the left sequential definition
enforces that ($a + $b) + $c dispatches to a version of + with the
return type of the lhs addition. That is you need lots of overloaded
versions of listfix +. Nonetheless I would like to define + and * to
be listfix and commutative, that is independent of order. Note that
this is orthogonal to the definition of evaluation order.

Regards, TSa.

"The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity"
  -- C.A.R. Hoare

Reply via email to