Browse thread
RE: [Caml-list] laziness
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | skaller <skaller@u...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] laziness |
On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 10:57, Richard Jones wrote: > Doesn't laziness often indicate a bug in the code? ie. You've > written an expression in the program, but that expression is never > used. This is dead code, right? Hence a bug? But that dead code if executed eagerly will result in a value stored in a variable which is never used. So the code is still 'dead code' and still a bug (assuming it is a bug) whether evaluation is eager or lazy. Actually the lazy case might make it easier to track this down by adding a debugging print in the expression -- in the eager case you get a diagnostic but can't deduce the result is used, in the lazy case you know the result is being used when you get the diagnostic. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners