On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Edward Z. Yang ezy...@mit.edu wrote:
Excerpts from David Feuer's message of Fri Sep 07 12:06:00 -0400 2012:
They're not *usually* desirable, but when the code has been proven not to
fall into bottom, there doesn't seem to be much point in ensuring that
Le Sat, 8 Sep 2012 09:20:29 +0100,
Ramana Kumar ramana.ku...@cl.cam.ac.uk a écrit :
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Edward Z. Yang ezy...@mit.edu wrote:
Excerpts from David Feuer's message of Fri Sep 07 12:06:00 -0400
2012:
They're not *usually* desirable, but when the code has been
Haskell already does this, to some extent, in the design of imprecise
exceptions. But note that bottom *does* have well defined behavior, so
these optimizations are not very desirable.
Edward
Excerpts from David Feuer's message of Thu Sep 06 19:35:43 -0400 2012:
I have no plans to do such a
On Sep 7, 2012 2:00 AM, Edward Z. Yang ezyang
ezy...@mit.edu@ezy...@mit.edu
mit.edu ezy...@mit.edu wrote:
Haskell already does this, to some extent, in the design of imprecise
exceptions. But note that bottom *does* have well defined behavior, so
these optimizations are not very desirable.
Excerpts from David Feuer's message of Fri Sep 07 12:06:00 -0400 2012:
They're not *usually* desirable, but when the code has been proven not to
fall into bottom, there doesn't seem to be much point in ensuring that
things will work right if it does. This sort of thing only really makes
sense
I have no plans to do such a thing anytime soon, but is there a way to tell
GHC to allow nasal demons to fly if the program forces bottom? This mode of
operation would seem to be a useful optimization when compiling a program
produced by Coq or similar, enabling various transformations that can
