[
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: | 2006-08-03 (07:09) |
From: | Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@f...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] strict? |
In your previous mail you wrote: Clearly the Wikipedia definition of strict: f(bottom) = bottom is rubbish when applied to a mathematical function like 'sin', since bottom isn't a valid argument, but it makes sense for 'sin' in the programming language sense. => as a student many years ago of the inventor of the "strictness" concept I don't understand your statement: a strict function is simply a function which uses its argument. In semantics this is caught by f(bottom) = bottom where bottom is a semantics value (not a real one) so by definition always a valid argument. Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr PS: the inventor is Jean Vuillemin and of course the strictness concept is central in the evaluation strategies.