Title: st
Click
for Instant Access to StunningTeens
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
> > I don't believe that it will break many programs. How many programs
> > produce large *input independent* output, that is not already
> > literally in the source, in a caf with a long life-time?
>
> That sounds like a description of all the animation programs in Paul
> Hudak's School of Expr
[My apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message]
---
C A L L F O R P A P E R S
** 1 month until submission deadline **
---
ACM SIGPLAN
> I don't believe that it will break many programs. How many programs
> produce large *input independent* output, that is not already
> literally in the source, in a caf with a long life-time?
That sounds like a description of all the animation programs in Paul
Hudak's School of Expression book
> I do not understand what full laziness has to do with all
> this! The big question is, in the following:
>
> f = do
>
>
> Should be shared among different calls to f? It is
> clear that will, but will not be shared,
> using the current translation used by GHC and Hugs.
Well,
I wrote:
| So, changing the translation in GHC might actually introduce
| a very nasty space leak in existing programs!
Simon Peyton-Jones answered:
| It might, conceivably. But the H98 report doesn't
| seem the right place to try to tweak full laziness.
| So I'm going to leave the report
Hi Jan.
I recently spent some time researching precisely this topic.
Unfortunately I don't have the exact references at hand but two key starting
points are TR433 by David Wise et al and Chris Angus "Numerical Software
DEvelopment with Functional Languages".
The TR433 report has code written in
