On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 09:44 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would the problematic semantics of seq be resolved if seq did nothing on
function types? That is to say
seq (\x -> undefined `asTypeOf` x) y reduced to y
and
seq (undefined `asTypeOf` id) y also reduced to y
I don't think so. You'd also have to avoid polymorphic types since they
can be used at function types. Basically you'd have to bring back the
Seq class. The rationale for removing the class and making seq
polymorphic is mentioned in the history of Haskell draft paper that was
recently advertised.
I don't understand. At execution time, all the polymoric variables are
gon, so we know the type of the parameter to seq.
--
Russell O'Connor <http://r6.ca/>
``All talk about `theft,''' the general counsel of the American Graphophone
Company wrote, ``is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in
ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as defined by statute.''
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
