[Haskell-cafe] Re: Shouldnt this be lazy too?

On 2007-09-24, Andrew Coppin wrote:

Neil Mitchell wrote:

...

Hi

lengthNat [1..] > 10

Couldn't be clearer, and can be made to work perfectly. If anyone does want to pick up the lazy naturals work, I can send over the code (or write it yourself - its not hard!)

Um... isn't a lazy natural just a list with no data, where the list length encodes a number?

That's one particularly simple representation, yes. "Lazy Unary". One can also construct other representations that may be more efficient in certain situations. -- Aaron Denney -><-