"do" notation and ">>"

Koen Claessen [email protected]
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:00:32 +0200 (MET DST)

Simon Marlow wrote:

 | This whole discussion is a red herring.  The Haskell
 | report doesn't say anything about sharing - it doesn't
 | even mandate laziness (look in the index - you won't
 | find the term "lazy" :-).

I was not suggesting that the Haskell'98 report should
change or even give a warning -- I was giving a warning to
compiler implementors, that this simple change might have
disastrous effects.

BTW, I remember a similar discussion along these lines on
the Haskell mailing list that happened in 1997 I think, but
I cannot find the archives.

Another comment one can make here is the following: if
Haskell does not care about sharing, why is the monomorphism
restriction there?


Koen Claessen
Chalmers University, Gothenburg, Sweden.