Re: putting laziness back on the parallelized map

From: Bernd Brassel <>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:02:32 +0100

Sergio Antoy wrote:

> I am attaching a test that works as one would expect from a
> parallel implementation.

Now I understood the example at last: The thing is that you will not get
the finite failures with a non-parallel implementation. Sorry for the
slow thinking!

That makes me wonder: The point seems to be that "the result" is
implicitly always defined by an evaluation to full normal form. Does
this definition to normal form have an expression in "fx" via (&) or
does it have to be primitive?

Thanks for the example!
curry mailing list
Received on Fr Mär 14 2008 - 10:37:01 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : So Dez 03 2023 - 07:15:11 CET