> > Agreed, but that wasn't my point. You may have the opinion that it wasn't > important, but I'm curious to know where anything tangible on laziness is > mentioned.
It isn't - deliberately. We leave "quality of implementation" issues entirely to the implementor. There are many implementation techniques available, including ones that may not have been invented yet, and there are different trade-offs between time and memory, and the spec quite deliberately doesn't get involved in such matters. The spec tells you what result to expect, it doesn't tell you when to expect it. Michael Kay Saxonica > As you say, not having any won't be very efficient, so you may as well be > explicit about it, right? I don't really understand why it's preferable to > have a syntax without an implementation, and I simply pointed out that in the > case of the fold-right example that becomes slightly odd... _______________________________________________ talk@x-query.com http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
