[snip]
If you're using an eager haskell implementation which does some speculative
evaluation of things that look cheap and that you might want to evaluate, the
answer is probably no. (Because, having decided to do some speculative work
in the absence of a demand, it might decide it has
[resending this mail from a different address as it didn't seem to get
through the first time. I apologise if you see multiple copies.]
[snip]
If you're using an eager haskell implementation which does some
speculative evaluation of things that look cheap and that you might want
to evaluate,
if i say:
foo = do
putStrLn a
unsafeInterleaveIO (putStrLn b putStrLn c)
putStrLn d
is it guarenteed that nothing will happen between putting b and c?
that is, while the place/time at which the (putStrLn b putStrLn
c) is unspecified, is it the case that the whole thing will be done at
On Friday 29 August 2003 7:23 pm, Hal Daume wrote:
if i say:
foo = do
putStrLn a
unsafeInterleaveIO (putStrLn b putStrLn c)
putStrLn d
is it guarenteed that nothing will happen between putting b and c?
that is, while the place/time at which the (putStrLn b putStrLn
c) is
Hi,
if i say:
foo = do
putStrLn a
unsafeInterleaveIO (putStrLn b putStrLn c)
putStrLn d
is it guarenteed that nothing will happen between putting b and c?
that is, while the place/time at which the (putStrLn b putStrLn
c) is unspecified, is it the case that the whole thing will be
In your example it's more or less guaranteed that putting b
and c will
never happen, because the result of the combinated IO action
isn't demanded.
well yes, it was a bad example. i got another answer basically saying
that threading could screw it up (i'm not using thread) as could,
