DDC compiler and effects; better than Haskell? (was Re:
dave at zednenem.com
Wed Aug 12 11:15:36 EDT 2009
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Derek Elkins<derek.a.elkins at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Robin Green<greenrd at greenrd.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:37:02 +0200
>> Peter Verswyvelen <bugfact at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, sorry.
>>> But I think I already found the answer to my own question.
>>> DDC functions that are lazy don't allow side effects:
>>> Anyway it would be cool if the DDC EffectSystem would also work on
>>> lazy functions :)
>> As was just pointed out in the unsafeDestructiveAssign thread from which
>> this thread was forked, effects are incompatible with non-strict
> No, they aren't. At least, they aren't in any technical way. There
> have been more than a few languages supporting both laziness and
> mutation starting with Algol.
As far as I know, Algol had call-by-name, not call-by-need.
Dave Menendez <dave at zednenem.com>
More information about the Haskell-Cafe