24 Sep
2007
24 Sep
'07
5:13 p.m.
length [1..] > 10
isnt lazily evaluated! I wouldnt expect this to be a bug, but in this case, shouldnt the computation end when the length function evaluation goes something like:
No. You want GHC to deduce that length would only increase in future. This property is relatively complex and GHC isn't so smart. Moreover, this property isn't even true: for example, if numeric overflow occurs. More importantly, this property doesn't make sense: length [1..] is (_|_) - undefined value, so this inequality is also meaningless.