Define "natural". You might want to look into the concept of Turing completeness. One could define a subset of Haskell in which bottoms cannot occur... but it turns out there's a lot of useful things you can't do in such a language. (In strict languages, these often are expressed as infinite loops of one kind or another. Note also that any dependency on external input is an infinite loop from the perspective of the language, since it can only be broken by the external entity providing the input.) On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:47 AM, (IIIT) Siddharth Bhat < siddharth.bhat@research.iiit.ac.in> wrote:
I've been thinking about the issue of purity and speculation lately, and from what little I have read, it looks like the presence of bottom hiding inside a lazy value is a huge issue.
How "natural" is it for bottoms to exist? If one were to change Haskell and declare that any haskell value can be speculated upon, what ramifications does this have?
Is it totally broken? Is it "correct" but makes programming unpleasant? What's the catch?
Thanks, Siddharth -- Sending this from my phone, please excuse any typos!
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allbery.b@gmail.com ballbery@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net