Re: Chairship / responsibility

Having Herbert as chair was also my understanding, and I'm very happy for him to chair these discussions. Nick On 30 April 2016 at 09:38, Andres Löh wrote: > It was my understanding that Herbert would be the chair when I asked > to be on the committee, and the fact

Re: Chairship / responsibility

Excellent. I'm very happy with how this thread has gone. :) (I didn't mean to imply, by the way, that we were slow to answer the `pseq` question. It's just that as I was about to move the email out of my inbox, I realized that we might all do so, and that would be bad. Yes, a few days' time is

Re: Evaluation order control between two expressions

Hi Carter, You are right. I had mixed case. In single thread case, I implicitly assumed IO context rather than pure parallel context. Thank you for explanation. Regards, Takenobu 2016-04-30 23:20 GMT+09:00 Carter Schonwald : > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 10:16 AM

Re: Chairship / responsibility

Yes, I'm essentially on-board thanks to Herbert, who I know tends to get shit done, and do it well. Sorry Herbert - I think you're going to be unanimously voted in this time, whatever exact details we sort out (like rotating committee chairs). Perhaps we should let you think about those details

Re: Infrastructure & Communication

Some random meta thoughts: I'm generally OK with using some newer, external service over Trac for our work. My impression is that everyone on board is probably OK with starting fresh for this iteration of the committee, and recycling/cleaning up any proposals or data we deem important anyway. The

Re: Evaluation order control between two expressions

> José Manuel Calderón Trilla writes: > Is this the reason it wasn't standardized this way to begin with? Miranda's > `seq` is like `pseq` (as was `seq` in other lazy language implementations) > so it's not as if there wasn't precedent. Note that this has been discussed

Re: Evaluation order control between two expressions

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Lennart Augustsson wrote: > Order of evaluation can be very important for memory use. So I can imagine > cases where seq would run out of memory, but pseq would not. > That's fair enough. Do you think it's worth attempting to standardize

Re: Chairship / responsibility

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:03 PM, John Wiegley wrote: >> Henrik Nilsson writes: > >>> It was my understanding that Herbert would be the chair when I asked to be >>> on the committee, and the fact that this question was already answer was

Re: Chairship / responsibility

> Henrik Nilsson writes: >> It was my understanding that Herbert would be the chair when I asked to be >> on the committee, and the fact that this question was already answer was a >> factor in my decision to try to help. > I agree completely with this. I

Re: Evaluation order control between two expressions

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 10:16 AM Takenobu Tani wrote: > Hi Prime, > > This is additional information to organize my brain. > > This issue also occurs in single thread. > Especially, when they have side effects. > >seq exp1 exp2 > > Because compiler can always re-order

Re: Evaluation order control between two expressions

Hi Prime, This is additional information to organize my brain. This issue also occurs in single thread. Especially, when they have side effects. seq exp1 exp2 Because compiler can always re-order two expressions in accordance with seq's denotational semantics. Regards, Takenobu

Re: Chairship / responsibility

On Saturday, April 30, 2016, Henrik Nilsson wrote: > Hi all, > > > It was my understanding that Herbert would be the chair when I asked > > to be on the committee, and the fact that this question was already > > answer was a factor in my decision to try to help.

Re: Chairship / responsibility

Hi all, > It was my understanding that Herbert would be the chair when I asked > to be on the committee, and the fact that this question was already > answer was a factor in my decision to try to help. I agree completely with this. And thanks to Herbert for now having completed the first step

Re: Evaluation order control between two expressions

Order of evaluation can be very important for memory use. So I can imagine cases where seq would run out of memory, but pseq would not. I would argue that pseq is almost always what you want, but seq has a nicer denotational semantics. -- Lennart On Friday, April 29, 2016, José Manuel

Re: Chairship / responsibility

Hi. It was my understanding that Herbert would be the chair when I asked to be on the committee, and the fact that this question was already answer was a factor in my decision to try to help. Being the committee chair is less a position of power, and more a position of responsibility. I think we

Re: Chairship / responsibility

Hello *, On 2016-04-29 at 15:17:43 +0200, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > Is there a chair of this committee? Herbert has been acting as such > (thank you!) but doesn't list himself as the chair in the initial > announcement. > > I am **in no way** trying to change any status quo and > am **not**

Re: Evaluation order control between two expressions

Hi Jose and Cale, Thank you for clear and detailed explanation. short summary: * `seq` used to eliminate/manage space leaks * `pseq` used to specify order of evaluation * `seq` is a bad name, but well established. * If we introduce parallelism to standard, we need `pseq` or some method.