Re: TDNR without new operators or syntax changes

> Jeremy hotmail.com> writes: Hi Jeremy, I feel your frustration at the slow evolution of records proposals. There are many reasons, including that there has been much debate and little consensus. > > Previous attempts to propose TDNR [1] have met with opposition over the > accompanying proposal

TDNR without new operators or syntax changes

Previous attempts to propose TDNR [1] have met with opposition over the accompanying proposal to change the syntax of the dot or add a new operator for postfix application. However, nothing about TDNR - other than certain motivating examples - actually requires changes to the syntax of Haskell or

RE: suboptimal ghc code generation in IO vs equivalent pure code case

As Harendra has found, the biggest difference is probably that the IO version is necessarily strict, constructing the entire list (via the stack) before it returns, whereas the pure one is lazy, constructing the list only on demand. So the memory footprint of the lazy one will be asymptotically