Tom Ellis wrote :

consider a lazy language, Haskell--, which
doesn't allow recursive bindings of non-function types.  In Haskell-- you
*cannot* write

    exps = 1 + integral exps

but you have to write

    exps = I.fix (\e -> 1 + integral e)

So we see that the nice syntax "exps = 1 + integral exps" is not due to
laziness (since Haskell-- is lazy, but you cannot write that).

If you say so...

You may always say:

"Consider the syntax XXXX. Now, consider a lazy language which doesn't allow XXXX.
So, your nice syntax has nothing to do with laziness. QED".

Tom, construct such a language, and I might believe you. Also, I recall your former objection, that

exps = 1 + integral exps

should work "for lazy lists" in a strict language. Please, implement it. Since you would need letrec anyway, I suggest Scheme (say, Racket). You will see what that implies. Compare the behaviour of strict and lazy Racket.

Best regards

Jerzy