On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Gleb Alexeyev <[email protected]>wrote:
> Thomas Davie wrote: > >> No, I think it's extremely useful. It highlights that numbers can both be >> lazy and strict, and that the so called "useless" lazy sum, is in fact, >> useful. >> >> But lazy sum should have beed defined in terms of foldr, not foldl. And > foldl is not strict enough for strict sum. Therefore the current choice in > the worst of both worlds. > I definitely agree with that sentiment. -Edward Kmett
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
