Hi
If you mean an example of coding style and choice of stack vs. heap, I already have..
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2008-January/038832.html
I'm at a loss as why you want a strict version of take. It's clearly not for performance, as it performs slower. I'd say both the gobbler programs have a bug, namely that they are not sufficiently lazy. As an aside, my version of this function would be: neilGobbler :: Int -> [x] -> [x] neilGobbler n xs = length res `seq` res where res = take n xs I have no idea if it takes the heap or the stack, or if it performs faster or slower. If you still have whatever test you used on the gobbler, perhaps you could tell us.
If you mean an example of it biting with lazy code, this is discussed so often you'd be spoiled for choice if you search the mailing list archives. Here's a good one..
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2005-December/013521.html
This example actually shows the problem twice. In one case it's solvable by using foldl' instead of foldl.
Which reduces the memory from O(n) to O(1). Surely thats a good thing, and the code before had a space leak. Space leak is bad, therefore telling people about it is good. I think its sensible to let people set their own stack bound (which is possible), but that clearly just from taking an informal poll of respondants to this thread, the current default should indeed be the default. You seem to be the only person clamouring for an unlimited stack, and thanks to +RTS, you already have it. Thanks Neil