Now that I've said my piece about syntax, we can get down to some
nitty gritty details of the language ...
The following are two different ways of factoring the L and U sections
needed in Crout reduction. The first version is a direct translation
of some FORTRANish pseudo-code and the second
Now, *there's* an interresting question ...
Personally, as an implementor, I'd vote for the second version,
i.e. I think that future Haskell compilers are more likely to
do away with the thunks than do update in place analysis. Why?
Because if we really want sequentialization of the accesses
