David Virebayre <dav.vire+haskell <at> gmail.com> writes: > Even if we had a syntax to express that the function is strict, > wouldn't we still need two distinct function names for the strict and > lazy case ?
OK, I'd like to register a "code smell" for: "hierarchical/systematic structure inside identifier names"; suggested refactoring: use hierarchy/structure provided by the language, in this case, something like: Data.List.Strict.fold, Data.List.Lazy.fold Or - if we had static overloading, and strictness info in the type, then we wouldn't need different names. Can of worms ... _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
