Neil Mitchell wrote:
My claim is that "any program which needs to adjust the stack size has a laziness leak" - since I've made a universally quantified claim, a couple of real examples should blow it out of the water.
But people often deliberately introduce lazyness leaks for improved efficency and in order to avoid space leaks. http://haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2007-May/012467.html Here there is essentially no difference between stackGobbler and heapGobbler (they both use a stack), but in order to avoid a "stack overflow" heapGobbler is tail recursive and explicitly implements the stack as a reversed list accumulator, which then has to be reversed at the end, so will burn twice as much heap to get a result as stackGobbler (at least if we already know the list has evaluated at least up to the point where it's tail get chopped off). Regards -- Adrian Hey _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
