| IIRC, there is a fairly complete discussion of this issue in the "History of
| Haskell" paper draft that SP Jones et al circulated about for comment.
| Unfortunately, those drafts seem to have been pulled now, so I can't double
| check or give you a link.
We're revising it. It'll be back online
Am Samstag, 20. Januar 2007 10:47 schrieb Robert Dockins:
>
> IIRC, there is a fairly complete discussion of this issue in the "History
> of Haskell" paper draft that SP Jones et al circulated about for comment.
> Unfortunately, those drafts seem to have been pulled now, so I can't double
> check o
This solution was used in the first place. But then some people were
too lazy
to actually use the Eval (as Seq was called) class, so they wanted
a polymorphic seq. And so we're in this mess. And it is a mess,
e.g., the foldr/build transformation ghc uses to fuse list processing
isn't really v
On Friday 19 January 2007 18:09, Brian Hulley wrote:
> Neil Mitchell wrote:
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> >> Is there any solution that would allow excess laziness to be removed
> >> from a Haskell program such that Hask would be a category?
> >
> > class Seq a where
> >seq :: a -> b -> b
> >
> > Then yo
On 1/20/07, Brian Hulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Neil Mitchell wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>> Is there any solution that would allow excess laziness to be removed
>> from a Haskell program such that Hask would be a category?
>
> class Seq a where
>seq :: a -> b -> b
>
> Then you have a different se
On 19/01/07, Brian Hulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) Does anyone know why this was not used in the first place?
It was decided that strictness annotations, and optimisations in
general, should typically come after you'd written your program.
However, requiring a Seq context everywhere would
Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi Brian,
Is there any solution that would allow excess laziness to be removed
from a Haskell program such that Hask would be a category?
class Seq a where
seq :: a -> b -> b
Then you have a different seq based on the types, and it doesn't go
wrong. You would probably
