Hi Wolfgang,
> Sorry for being so cryptic and terse in my previous mail. The ...
> part in the let expression was (this time without infix notation):
>
> seq y (x + y)
>
> The seq function, which I once suggested to carry over from Haskell,
> has the semantics
> seq \bot _ = \bot
> seq x y = y if x /= \bot
> Thus, it must evaluate its first argument before the second.
You were not cryptic. Perhaps, I was. What I meant to say is
that the user should not have to say the order of evaluation, and
perhaps should not be allowed to. I don't favor the use of seq.
If the discussion is call-time vs need-time choice semantics, and
the problem is to let the user select a semantics, then a clean
solution is a language with a construct to let the user select a
semantics.
Sergio
_______________________________________________
curry mailing list
curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry
Received on Di Jun 15 2004 - 19:05:12 CEST