Regarding Lifted vs. Unlifted Function Spaces
-
Gee, maybe lifted functions aren't such a good idea after all! (:-)
But before reaching that conclusion, there are a few points that need
clarification. In particular, Simon mentions two problems
* My taste is that isomorphic possibly-abstract types should get a new kind
of type declaration (newtype, isotype, or whatever), perhaps defined to be
exactly equivalent to a algebraic data type with just one strict
constructor. But I don't feel strongly about this.
(At least w
Simon writes
| I have never, never been tripped up by the liftedness of tuples, but the
| argument that ``we are prepared to pay for laziness so why not this too''
| has a certain masochistic charm. I'll try the effect on performance of
| making all tuple-matching lazy in the nofib suite.
Good
I think we should be pretty cautious about jumping in with lifed function
spaces. I have come up with two distinct unintended effects. While neither
is fatal to the idea, I don't think either obvious, and I am nervous that
others may pop out of the woodwork somewhere down the road (to mix
meta
