(This message assumes we head for the strictness-annotation-on-constructor-arg
solution. I'll respond to Phil's comments in my next msg.)
The problem with polymorphic strictness
~~~
John asks what the problem is with strict constructor args. As Lennart and
So, as Lennart says, if we allow constructors to be strict in functions
then we have to change the semantics to distinguish _|_ from (\x - _|_).
I, for one, am deeply reluctant to do so; I certainly have no good handle on
the consequences of doing so. Does anyone else?
I thought this
Gerald Ostheimer notes that in Abramsky and Ong's lazy lambda calculus
that (\x - bottom) differs from bottom. That's correct.
But just because they call it `lazy' doesn't mean that it really is
the essence of laziness. I prefer to use the more neutral name `lifted
lambda calculus' for their
I have been following this discussion with interest and I'd like
some clarification.
Wadler writes:
But just because they call it `lazy' doesn't mean that it really is
the essence of laziness.
What is really been called `lazy' and how is the `essence of
laziness' defined?
Also, forgive my
