"Neil Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I should have been more precise with my question. Given the code:
>
> fred = 2 + 2
>
> bob = fred + fred
>
> In a Haskell implementation fred would be evaluated once to 4, then
> used twice. The 2+2 would only happen once (ignore defaulting and
> overlo
On 26 Dec 2007, at 12:30 PM, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
Well I certainly hope the standard defines that both fred and bob
will only
be evaluated once, because my programs depend on that :)
If your programs depend on lazy evaluation, they can't be Haskell
98. Any complete reduction method is
Hi Neil,
On Dec 26, 2007 7:16 PM, Neil Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given the code:
>
> fred = 2 + 2
>
> bob = fred + fred
>
> In a Haskell implementation fred would be evaluated once to 4, then
> used twice. The 2+2 would only happen once (ignore defaulting and
> overloaded numerics for
Well I certainly hope the standard defines that both fred and bob will only
be evaluated once, because my programs depend on that :)
Peter
Neil wrote:
> fred = 2 + 2
> bob = fred + fred
> In a Haskell implementation fred would be evaluated once to 4, then
> used twice. The 2+2 would only happen
Hi
> > Are CAF's specified in the Haskell report? I couldn't find them mentioned.
>
> CAF is a term of art. If you define
>
> fred = 2 + 2
>
> that's a CAF.
I should have been more precise with my question. Given the code:
fred = 2 + 2
bob = fred + fred
In a Haskell implementation fred would b
"Neil Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Are CAF's specified in the Haskell report? I couldn't find them mentioned.
CAF is a term of art. If you define
fred = 2 + 2
that's a CAF.
> If not, why do all Haskell compilers support them?
How could they not? I'm not sure I understand y
