On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Antonio Regidor García
<a_regidor_at_yahoo.es> wrote:
> Shouldn't (a & b) be semantically equivalent to (b & a)?
I think so.
In Curry, non-termination is semantically equivalent to failure, so if
an implementation manages to enumerate all solutions, it is (from a
semantics point of view) irrelevant whether it terminates afterwards.
I think, however, that it should be possible to keep the search space
finite for both versions of partition by blocking the evaluation of
shared expressions and resuming them when demanded by (=:=).
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
curry mailing list
curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry
Received on Di Jun 14 2011 - 17:39:53 CEST