Re: putting laziness back on the parallelized map

From: Bernd Brassel <>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:18:05 +0100

Sergio Antoy wrote:

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

Some more questions on the example, Sergio, if I may:

Is map defined here in one of the ways Sebastian proposed?

Would test4/test5/test6 behave the same if g was defined as follows?

g (x,y) = nf (f x,f y)

nf (Loop,Fail) = (Loop,Fail)
nf (Fail,Loop) = (Fail,Loop)
nf (Loop,Stop) = (Loop,Stop)

To put the question another way: is only the implicit normal form
parallelized or also the pattern matching where possible?
curry mailing list
Received on Fr Mär 14 2008 - 10:37:01 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Do Jun 20 2024 - 07:15:09 CEST