Andreas Leitner wrote at the end of his discussion about
constants/functions sans arguments:
> I mean couldn't one say that there are no constants, just functions
> with no arguments or the Void/Unit argument that return an expression.
> Since we have lazy evaluation, there won't be a problem at
Andreas Leitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I hope this is the right forum to post my question to.
>
> Given a lazy pure functional language do we need to differntiate (in
> syntax) between constants and functions without agruments? And if we
> don't need to, does Haskell make a difference?
>From a pedanti
Tom Pledger wrote:
>
> Andreas Leitner writes:
> :
> | Given a lazy pure functional language do we need to differntiate
> | (in syntax) between constants and functions without agruments? And
> | if we don't need to, does Haskell make a difference?
>
> Haskell always treats a declaration of t
Andreas Leitner writes:
:
| Given a lazy pure functional language do we need to differntiate
| (in syntax) between constants and functions without agruments? And
| if we don't need to, does Haskell make a difference?
Haskell always treats a declaration of the form
foo = ...
as a pattern
Hi,
I hope this is the right forum to post my question to.
Given a lazy pure functional language do we need to differntiate (in
syntax) between constants and functions without agruments? And if we
don't need to, does Haskell make a difference?
In a language with eager evaluation (let's take SML
