Sergio Antoy wrote:
>
> To refine Wolfgang's statement, consider:
>
> (0 ? 1, f x) where x free
>
> Here, x is not bound a head normal form, however, sharing it
> among the two branches of (?) is a good idea.
Since the pair constructor (,) accepts its argument via call-by-name,
and the logical variable x occurs only in one of its components,
this is in my opinion equivalent to
(0 ? 1, (f x where x free))
with x completely independent and unaware
of the choice in the first pair component.
Wolfram
_______________________________________________
curry mailing list
curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry
Received on Do Nov 01 2007 - 23:50:34 CET