Am Mittwoch, 23. November 2005 20:42 schrieb Wolfgang Jeltsch: > Am Mittwoch, 23. November 2005 19:02 schrieb Fan Wu: > [...]
> > But it is still not clear to me why lazy pattern is used here. Any ideas? > > Let's discuss this for State instead of StateT because this makes the > discussion easier. > > [...] Oops, I've answered a question you didn't ask. I haven't looked at your message carefully enough and thought that you were refering to the implementation of (>>=) while in fact you were refering to the implementation of mplus. But I think the reasons behind lazy pattern usage in the mplus implementation are similar to those behind lazy pattern usage in the (>>=) implementation. > [...] Best wishes, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
