wren ng thornton <wren <at> freegeek.org> writes: [snick]
> > isum 0 s = s > > isum n s = isum (n-1) (s+n) > > This is tail recursive, and will be optimized to an iterative loop; [snick] > > In terms of having a compiler 'smart enough', it's not clear that > functions of this sort ought to be inferred strict simply because the > accumulator is ultimately returned to the caller. Consider for example: I thought this was strict as Luke Palmer has already pointed out. My understanding is that a compiler may be able to infer it is strict and then perform eager evaluation. > > > f 0 xs = xs > > f n xs = f (n-1) (replicate n n ++ xs) > > Since (++) can indeed return partial answers, it's fine for the > accumulator to be lazy. Indeed, making it strict harms performance > significantly. Another example is when the accumulator is a function, as Can this function be strict if (++)isn't? And if it isn't strict, why would it make sense to evaluate it eagerly? Dominic. PS This subject seems to come up often enough to be worth a wiki entry (maybe there already is one). I think we should also be careful with terminology (as Luke Palmer and David Menendez have pointed out. Maybe that could be included in the wiki entry. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
