(I’m somewhat dismayed that the error in my preliminary remark has overshadowed the point of my original message — which was about the distinction between lazy and non-strict. However…)
David Barbour <dmbarb...@gmail.com> writes: > Full beta-reduction is certainly not strict What, precisely, do you mean by “full beta-reduction”? > but also doesn't guarantee terminate even where it is possible > (i.e. it might indefinitely unfold a value without making > progress). That sounds very much to me like being overly strict. > I don't think there is much you can say about non-strictness > and termination. I would hope there would be, as that (or at least productivity) is the point of saying that Haskell has non-strict semantics. > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:01 AM, > Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairba...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Perhaps what I should have said to be almost as succinct but >> this time accurate is “non-strict semantics requires that the >> evaluation strategy terminate if there is any evaluation >> strategy that terminates”? -- Jón Fairbairn jon.fairba...@cl.cam.ac.uk _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
