|
|
Achim Schneider <barsoap@xxxxxx> wrote:
> That's not specified though, the runtime could choose to let + force
> the two chunks the different way round.
>
And that is probably also the reason why [1..] == [1..] is _|_.
Is "Something that can be, in any evaluation strategy, be bottom, is
bottom" quite right, i.e. the formalism defined such, that no
possibly unevaluable thing is defined?
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
signature prohibited.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
|
|