On 18/11/11 06:44, Johan Tibell wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Johan Tibell<johan.tib...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not entirely happy with this formulation. I'm looking for
something that's clear (i.e. precise and concise, without leaving out
important information), assuming that the reader already knows how
lazy evaluation works at a high level.
Ideas?
This reads a bit better to me:
I actually much prefer the original formulation. In particular, you
should keep examples together with the rules they illustrate.
* key and value function arguments passed to functions are
evaluated to WHNF before the function body is evaluated, and
"function arguments passed to functions" sounds a bit redundant. Either
say "arguments passed to functions" or "function arguments". Also
"before the function body is evaluated" says something about evaluation
order, does that really matter for strictness?
* All key and value arguments passed to functions are
evaluated to WHNF before the function body is evaluated
> * keys and values returned by high-order function arguments are
> evaluated to WHNF before they are inserted into the map.
Keys and values not returned by higher order functions, but passed in
directly are also evaluated to WHNF (per the first rule), so that
qualification is unnecessary. Just say:
* keys and values are evaluated to WHNF before they are
inserted into the map.
I also think 'stored' is better here than 'inserted', because the latter
might give the impression that it only applies to the insert function,
and not to things like map.
insertWith (+) k undefined m == undefined
> etc.
As Roman suggested, use = here instead of ==.
To really illustrate the first rule, insertWith (+) is not enough, you
would really need a function that doesn't use the value, so
insertWith (\new old -> old) k undefined m = undefined
But that is just nitpicking.
Twan
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
