On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 08:57:33PM +0000, Neil Mitchell wrote: > >I don't know if any actual language does this, > > What, that is strict and would like to inline things for performance? > There is a reason they can't do this.
I had intended for that to apply to my proposal - I know real strict languages have inlining issues. > >but your inlining problem can > >be solved by letting _|_ = arbitrary behaivor. > > So would you allow folding? (inlining = unfolding) i.e. replacing > defined behaviour with _|_? > > And how many equational reasoning steps do you have to go, before your > program is totally different? In my idea, the rule: forall a. _|_ -> a only works forward - so you can turn a program that fails into a program that fails silently, but a working program must stay a working program. This was intended to make optimizing compilation easier, human equational reasoners would not be the intended beneficiaries. This proposal effectively allows a compiler to assume that a program will terminate successfully; a strictly weaker set of deduction rules would correspond to leaving evaluation order unspecified. I apologize for the unclearness. Stefan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
