Bjorn Lisper wrote:
Joe Fasel wrote:
Actually, I think we were originally thinking of laziness, rather
than nonstrictness, and weren't considering languages like Id as
part of our domain, but Arvind and Nikhil (quite correctly) convinced
us that the semantic distinction of strictness
Joe Fasel wrote:
Actually, I think we were originally thinking of laziness, rather
than nonstrictness, and weren't considering languages like Id as
part of our domain, but Arvind and Nikhil (quite correctly) convinced
us that the semantic distinction of strictness versus nonstrictness
should
Frank Christoph wrote,
| Ah, right. Someone mentioned just recently (I forget who---sorry) that
| nothing in the Report forces a Haskell implementation to use call-by-need. I
| guess this is a manifestation of the change of direction, from laziness to
| non-strictness...?
My point was meant to
