Strict tuples

[Bulat Ziganshin]

Hello Wolfgang,

Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 1:29:24 AM, you wrote:

you said WHAT you think but not said WHY? my motivation is to be able
to use myriads of already implemented algorithms on new datatypes

>> as i said, shebang patterns allow only to specify that IMPLEMENTATION
>> of some function is strict. this helps only when this function are
>> called directly. they can't help when function is passed as parameter
>> or enclosed in data structure or a part of class. the same about
>> datatypes - i can't declare what some algorithm works only with
>> strict lists. i try to find extensions what will allow to specify
>> strictness in every case where now we forced to use lazy computations
>>
>> the concrete syntax what i propose may be wrong

WJ> Well, it's probably nice sometimes to have types which guarantee the 
WJ> strictness of certain components.  For example, it might be good to have a
WJ> list type where the strictness of the elements is guaranteed.  But I'm sure
WJ> that it's wrong to try to achieve this by annotating type arguments like in
WJ> [!a].  I think, this approach is wrong, not just the syntax.

WJ> Best wishes,
WJ> Wolfgang
WJ> _______________________________________________
WJ> Haskell-prime mailing list
WJ> Haskell-prime at haskell.org
WJ> http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime



-- 
Best regards,
 Bulat                            mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin at gmail.com