Bjorn Lisper wrote:
> >Joe Fasel wrote:
> >> Actually, I think we were originally thinking of laziness, rather
> >> than nonstrictness, and weren't considering languages like Id as
> >> part of our domain, but Arvind and Nikhil (quite correctly) convinced
> >> us that the semantic distinction of s
>Joe Fasel wrote:
>> Actually, I think we were originally thinking of laziness, rather
>> than nonstrictness, and weren't considering languages like Id as
>> part of our domain, but Arvind and Nikhil (quite correctly) convinced
>> us that the semantic distinction of strictness versus nonstrictness
Frank Christoph wrote,
| Ah, right. Someone mentioned just recently (I forget who---sorry) that
| nothing in the Report forces a Haskell implementation to use call-by-need. I
| guess this is a manifestation of the change of direction, from laziness to
| non-strictness...?
My point was meant to b
