Re: [Haskell-cafe] Hints for Euler Problem 11

Lennart Augustsson wrote:

On 8/17/07, Kim-Ee Yeoh wrote:

...

How much static evaluation do you want to see in Haskell?

I'd like to see as much static evaluation as is practically possible.

Yes but not in (the language formally defined as) Haskell. Not even in {your favorite Haskell compiler/interpreter} without -O. With -O by all means let her rip. Incidentally, GHC's type checker is Turing complete. You already have as much static evaluation as is practically possible. You already knew that. Lennart Augustsson wrote:

And as a previous poster showed, ghc does concatenate strings.

And Haskell (as in the current language definition) does not. I was talking about Haskell. Having said that, I'll concede there may be room for more than one language here. I want syntax transparently reflecting straightforward if slowpoke operational semantics. You want fast, tight programs. I want fast, tight programs too, but not by giving up the former. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Hints-for-Euler-Problem-11-tf4114963.html#a12197224 Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com.