31 Jul
2010
31 Jul
'10
1:47 p.m.
On 10-07-31 01:30 PM, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On 7/31/10 12:59 , michael rice wrote:
But since both still have eval x to *thunk* : *thunk*, g evaluates "to a deeper level?"
The whole point of laziness is that f *doesn't* have to eval x.
To elaborate, in computer-friendly syntax: f x = length (red_herring : []) length cares about cons cells (:) and nil [] only. You have already hardcoded exactly those. Enough said... err, enough evaluated.