[Haskell-cafe] Re: strict Haskell dialect
jmaessen at alum.mit.edu
Sat Feb 4 13:10:41 EST 2006
On Feb 3, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Brian Hulley wrote:
> Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
>> I pointed out some problems with strict Haskell in a recent talk, but
>> I think it'd be worth underscoring them here in this forum.
> Is the text of this talk or points raised in it available online
>> <snip> There is one very difficult piece of syntax in a strict
>> setting: The
>> *where* clause. The problem is that it's natural to write a bunch of
>> bindings in a where clause which only scope over a few conditional
>> clauses. I'm talking about stuff like this:
>> f x
>> | p x = ..... a ...a . a .... a ...
>> | complex_condition = ......... b .. b ... b ......
>> | otherwise = ..... a ....... b .....
>> where a = horrible expression in x which is bottom when
>> complex_condition is true.
>> b = nasty expression in x which doesn't terminate when p x
>> is true.
>> complex_condition = big expression which
>> goes on for lines and lines
>> and would drive the reader
>> insane if it occurred in line.
> Surely it would not be too difficult for the compiler to only
> evaluate the where bindings that are relevant depending on which
> guard evaluates to True ie in your example, the binding for a would
> be evaluated if p x is True, otherwise the complex_condition would
> be evaluated, and if True, b would be evaluated, otherwise a and b
> would be evaluated: ...
In principle, yes, this is eminently doable. But the translation
becomes surprisingly messy when the bindings in question are mutually
recursive. Certainly it's not a simple syntax-directed translation,
in contrast to essentially every other piece of syntactic sugar in
More information about the Haskell-prime