Exactly. Short-circuiting is emulating laziness in this one case where it turns out to be generally useful. And while (_|_ && _|_) may be evaluatable from a logical standpoint, computer languages tend to not do well with it: regardless of how it evaluates, (&&) is going to try to force at least one of the bottoms.
I think Brandon's point is that short-circuiting is in fact an example of lazy evaluation, regardless of the language being otherwise strict.
> Er? Without laziness, you're going to try to evaluate the bottoms
> regardless of where they are.
Exactly: with lazyness, either associativity gives the same result,
and without lazyness either associativity also gives the same result.
The two seem orthogonal to me.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
--