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
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 08:09 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 -
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Duncan Coutts wrote:
Ah ok, I misunderstood. Well that'd be a bit odd too. No other function
behaves differently on different types except by use of type classes.
I agree it is quite odd, but the seq we have is already quite odd.
Furthermore, the fact is that seq on
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have an example of use of seq on
a function type? (Of course I
don't want to ban it, just change its behaviour.)
I don't have any wisdom to offer on how we would want to ban or change
the behavior of seq on a function type without using type classes. Nor
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
--
Russell O'Connor http://r6.ca/
``All talk
