[Haskell-cafe] curious about sum
keithshep at gmail.com
Wed Jun 17 17:05:50 EDT 2009
In lambda calculus numbers are just functions and you evaluate them
just like any other function. Haskell could have chosen the same
representation for numbers and all evaluation on numbers would be lazy
(assuming normal order evaluation). I think that would have been the
"Purist Lazy" way to go. That is not the way the creators of Haskell
designed language though... am i missing something?
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Lennart
Augustsson<lennart at augustsson.net> wrote:
> What do you mean by "literals are strict"? Strictness is a semantic
> property of functions, and while literals can be overloaded to be
> functions I don't know what you mean.
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Keith Sheppard<keithshep at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Haskell's numeric literals are strict. You wouldn't want that to
>> change right? It seems to me that having sum and product be strict is
>> consistent with this.
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Thomas Davie<tom.davie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 17 Jun 2009, at 13:32, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
>>>> Henk-Jan van Tuyl wrote:
>>>> Oh yes, please fix those also!
>>> import Prelude.Strict?
>>> Honestly, these functions are ones that I've *deffinately* used lazy
>>> versions of, in fact, in the cases of minimum/maximum I've even used ones
>>> that are super-lazy and parallel using unamb.
>>> It would be extremely odd to randomly decide "most people would want this to
>>> be strict" based on no knowledge of what they're actually doing. Instead,
>>> why don't we stand by the fact that haskell is a lazy language, and that the
>>> functions we get by default are lazy, and then write a strict prelude as I
>>> suggest above to complement the lazy version.
>>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
More information about the Haskell-Cafe