Simon Marlow wrote: | This whole discussion is a red herring. The Haskell | report doesn't say anything about sharing - it doesn't | even mandate laziness (look in the index - you won't | find the term "lazy" :-).
I was not suggesting that the Haskell'98 report should change or even give a warning -- I was giving a warning to compiler implementors, that this simple change might have disastrous effects. BTW, I remember a similar discussion along these lines on the Haskell mailing list that happened in 1997 I think, but I cannot find the archives. Another comment one can make here is the following: if Haskell does not care about sharing, why is the monomorphism restriction there? Regards, /Koen. -- Koen Claessen http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~koen Chalmers University, Gothenburg, Sweden. _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
