Comments on: Lazier function definitions by merging partial values http://conal.net/blog/posts/lazier-function-definitions-by-merging-partial-values Inspirations & experiments, mainly about denotative/functional programming in Haskell Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:42:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Conal Elliott » Blog Archive » Lazier functional programming, part 1 http://conal.net/blog/posts/lazier-function-definitions-by-merging-partial-values/comment-page-1#comment-57046 Conal Elliott » Blog Archive » Lazier functional programming, part 1 Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:18:59 +0000 http://conal.net/blog/?p=76#comment-57046 <p>[...] reading. (The reading is less straightforward when patterns overlap, as mentioned in Lazier function definitions by merging partial values.) In a non-strict language like Haskell, there are three distinct boolean values, not two. Besides [...]</p> [...] reading. (The reading is less straightforward when patterns overlap, as mentioned in Lazier function definitions by merging partial values.) In a non-strict language like Haskell, there are three distinct boolean values, not two. Besides [...]

]]> By: Conal Elliott » Blog Archive » Nonstrict memoization http://conal.net/blog/posts/lazier-function-definitions-by-merging-partial-values/comment-page-1#comment-49258 Conal Elliott » Blog Archive » Nonstrict memoization Wed, 14 Jul 2010 05:28:37 +0000 http://conal.net/blog/?p=76#comment-49258 <p>[...] Lazier function definitions by merging partial values, I examined the standard Haskell style (inherited from predecessors) of definition by clauses, [...]</p> [...] Lazier function definitions by merging partial values, I examined the standard Haskell style (inherited from predecessors) of definition by clauses, [...]

]]> By: Conal Elliott » Blog Archive » Exact numeric integration http://conal.net/blog/posts/lazier-function-definitions-by-merging-partial-values/comment-page-1#comment-34691 Conal Elliott » Blog Archive » Exact numeric integration Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:24:52 +0000 http://conal.net/blog/?p=76#comment-34691 <p>[...] Now we have some information. How can we mix it in with the sum of recursive calls to integral? We can use (⊔) (least upper bound or “lub”), which is perfect for the job because its meaning is exactly to combine two pieces of information. See Merging partial values and Lazier function definitions by merging partial values. [...]</p> [...] Now we have some information. How can we mix it in with the sum of recursive calls to integral? We can use (⊔) (least upper bound or “lub”), which is perfect for the job because its meaning is exactly to combine two pieces of information. See Merging partial values and Lazier function definitions by merging partial values. [...]

]]> By: Robert F http://conal.net/blog/posts/lazier-function-definitions-by-merging-partial-values/comment-page-1#comment-15242 Robert F Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:30:22 +0000 http://conal.net/blog/?p=76#comment-15242 <p>Is this related to the indefinability of parallel or in PCF (and corresponding lack of full abstraction for the domain theoretic semantics thereof)?</p> Is this related to the indefinability of parallel or in PCF (and corresponding lack of full abstraction for the domain theoretic semantics thereof)?

]]> By: Eyal Lotem http://conal.net/blog/posts/lazier-function-definitions-by-merging-partial-values/comment-page-1#comment-14556 Eyal Lotem Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:24:26 +0000 http://conal.net/blog/?p=76#comment-14556 <p>Perhaps this calls for a language extension of non-biased pattern-matches?</p> <p>As a language extension, it will probably be easier to prove totality while retaining nearly identical syntax to existing pattern-matching functions.</p> Perhaps this calls for a language extension of non-biased pattern-matches?

As a language extension, it will probably be easier to prove totality while retaining nearly identical syntax to existing pattern-matching functions.

]]> By: Luke Palmer http://conal.net/blog/posts/lazier-function-definitions-by-merging-partial-values/comment-page-1#comment-14484 Luke Palmer Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:34:38 +0000 http://conal.net/blog/?p=76#comment-14484 <p>Well, I don't know about uses, but with the existence of lub, I smell a theorem to the order of "Every set of equations has a least strict implementation", for a suitably restricted definition of equation. If true, I would consider this a very important theorem. If I have some idle brainpower (unlikely) I'll play with it a bit.</p> Well, I don’t know about uses, but with the existence of lub, I smell a theorem to the order of “Every set of equations has a least strict implementation”, for a suitably restricted definition of equation. If true, I would consider this a very important theorem. If I have some idle brainpower (unlikely) I’ll play with it a bit.

]]>