On 06 December 2004 13:25, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>>> and is it (still?) true that GHC never expands them?
>>
>> I'm not sure if GHC guarantees never to duplicate a redex, Simon PJ
>> might know.
>
> Yes, it's very careful not to duplicate a redex, except for ones of
> known bounded size, lik
| > and is it (still?) true that GHC never expands them?
|
| I'm not sure if GHC guarantees never to duplicate a redex, Simon PJ
| might know.
Yes, it's very careful not to duplicate a redex, except for ones of
known bounded size, like x +# y, where sharing the work costs more than
duplicating in
On 04 December 2004 04:27, Judah Jacobson wrote:
> What exactly are redex's, in this context,
Any expression which can be beta-reduced or case-reduced.
> and is it (still?) true that GHC never expands them?
I'm not sure if GHC guarantees never to duplicate a redex, Simon PJ
might know.
> Or ar
