In practice, Haskell a call-by-need language. Still, software developers are not on firm ground when they run into trouble with evaluation order, because the language definition leaves this open. Is this an underspecification that should be fixed? 1. Haskell programmers learn the pitfalls of sharing as soon as they cut their teeth on 'fib', 2. Virtually all significant-sized Haskell programs rely on lazy evaluation and have never been tested with another evaluation strategy, 3. Questions come up on Haskell-Café, infrequently but regularly, regarding whether a compiler optimization has altered sharing of values within a program, causing it to fail, 4. The rationale for the monomorphism restriction assumes lazy evaluation, 5. It is the effect on asymptotic behavior that matters, 6. Portable Haskell code should not have to allow for the variety of non-strict evaluation strategies, as the Haskell Report currently implies. I suggest specifying call-by-need evaluation, allowing for the places where type classes prevent this. If necessary, make it clear that local optimizations not affecting asymptotic behavior are permitted. This would not eliminate struggles with evaluation order. The intent would be to clarify expectations. -- Scott Turner