- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Wolfgang Lux <wlux_at_uni-muenster.de>

Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:09:10 +0100

Bernd Brassel wrote:

*> Without wishing to open up an old topic again: What were the reasons
*

*> to make seq rigid? Why should it not correspond to head normal form?
*

*> You could always define the old seq as
*

*> oldseq x y = case x of _ -> y
*

*> or does that taste too much like a hack?
*

No, not like a hack, but it will not work as you expect. The expression

case x of _ -> y is equivalent to let _ = x in y and since there is no

demand for x in that expression, it simply does not evaluate x at all.

At least this is what Haskell implementations and MCC do and I think

this

is also what the Curry report says:

The informal operational meaning of the case expression is as follows.

Evaluate e so that it matches a pattern p_i.

Since there is only one pattern and every expression matches e, there is

no need for evaluating e. In fact, the reason that one cannot use

case x of _ -> y

in order to force x's evaluation was my original motivation for

proposing

the seq function, and since case was rigid it appeared to me that seq

should be rigid as well, which I not realize was some kind of

short-circuit.

*> Subsuming, I would agree to Wolfgang's proposal to eliminate eval
*

*> annotations. I would avoid, however, to introduce a new rigid
*

*> primitive and express rigidity by case expressions.
*

First of all, unless the Curry report does explicitly clarify that

case x of _ -> y *does* evaluate x, you cannot define a polymorphic

function rigid with type a -> a. [BTW, note that there is a good

reason for not evaluating x in that case expression because it

destroys the property that you can rewrite

case x of c p1 ... pk -> e

into

case x of c x1 ... xk -> case x1 of p1 -> ... -> case xk of pk -> e

where x1,...,xk are fresh variables and p1,...,pk are patterns.]

Even if this change were made, I propose to have a rigid function in

the prelude

because it is too useful. With the help of that function, you can

define oldseq

simply by oldseq = sed . rigid, which is so simple that I don't think it

deserves to become a prelude function (unless someone really has a need

for it).

Another use of rigid (since you were asking for something like that in

another

posting) could be ensuring that the arguments of a message stream are

not

variables: map rigid . rigidSpine.

In fact, one could take this idea a step further and also provide a

primitive

function ground :: a -> a, which (again lazily) ensures that its result

is a

ground term, i.e.,

ground X = ground (rigid X)

ground (C e1 ... ek) = C (ground e1) ... (ground ek)

where X is an unbound variable, and C is a constructor of arity k.

(Obviously,

this will have to be a primitive except in an implementation using type

classes,

where one could automatically derive ground). On the other hand, I once

implemented this function for MCC (it is available as Success.ground),

but

it turns out that I do not use it because it seems to be too rigid, so

I'm

not sure how useful this function would really be (at least for sending

message

through ports it certainly isn't).

Regards

Wolfgang

_______________________________________________

curry mailing list

curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE

http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry

Received on Fr Nov 05 2004 - 16:49:20 CET

Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:09:10 +0100

Bernd Brassel wrote:

No, not like a hack, but it will not work as you expect. The expression

case x of _ -> y is equivalent to let _ = x in y and since there is no

demand for x in that expression, it simply does not evaluate x at all.

At least this is what Haskell implementations and MCC do and I think

this

is also what the Curry report says:

The informal operational meaning of the case expression is as follows.

Evaluate e so that it matches a pattern p_i.

Since there is only one pattern and every expression matches e, there is

no need for evaluating e. In fact, the reason that one cannot use

case x of _ -> y

in order to force x's evaluation was my original motivation for

proposing

the seq function, and since case was rigid it appeared to me that seq

should be rigid as well, which I not realize was some kind of

short-circuit.

First of all, unless the Curry report does explicitly clarify that

case x of _ -> y *does* evaluate x, you cannot define a polymorphic

function rigid with type a -> a. [BTW, note that there is a good

reason for not evaluating x in that case expression because it

destroys the property that you can rewrite

case x of c p1 ... pk -> e

into

case x of c x1 ... xk -> case x1 of p1 -> ... -> case xk of pk -> e

where x1,...,xk are fresh variables and p1,...,pk are patterns.]

Even if this change were made, I propose to have a rigid function in

the prelude

because it is too useful. With the help of that function, you can

define oldseq

simply by oldseq = sed . rigid, which is so simple that I don't think it

deserves to become a prelude function (unless someone really has a need

for it).

Another use of rigid (since you were asking for something like that in

another

posting) could be ensuring that the arguments of a message stream are

not

variables: map rigid . rigidSpine.

In fact, one could take this idea a step further and also provide a

primitive

function ground :: a -> a, which (again lazily) ensures that its result

is a

ground term, i.e.,

ground X = ground (rigid X)

ground (C e1 ... ek) = C (ground e1) ... (ground ek)

where X is an unbound variable, and C is a constructor of arity k.

(Obviously,

this will have to be a primitive except in an implementation using type

classes,

where one could automatically derive ground). On the other hand, I once

implemented this function for MCC (it is available as Success.ground),

but

it turns out that I do not use it because it seems to be too rigid, so

I'm

not sure how useful this function would really be (at least for sending

message

through ports it certainly isn't).

Regards

Wolfgang

_______________________________________________

curry mailing list

curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE

http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry

Received on Fr Nov 05 2004 - 16:49:20 CET

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Mo Feb 06 2023 - 07:15:07 CET
*