Hi, > No, the thunks are (usually) stored on the heap. You don't get the > stack overflow until you actually force the computation at which point > you have an expression like: > (...(((1+2)+3)+4) ... + 10000000) > which requires stack in proportion to the number of nested parentheses > (effectively)
Ah, that makes! So does it make sense to talk about "tail recursive thunks"? Or does the evaluation of thunks always take stack space proportional to the "nesting level"? Edsko _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
