From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p09GGCeY031440
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:16:12 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqcAAFxtKU1KfVK0k2dsb2JhbACXUoxiCBUBAQIJCQoJEQQgpQKMDQEFiWkBBIVM
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,296,1291590000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="72630819"
Received: from mail-wy0-f180.google.com ([74.125.82.180])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2011 17:16:06 +0100
Received: by wyb28 with SMTP id 28so18701925wyb.39
        for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:16:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:references
         :in-reply-to:subject:date:organization:message-id:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index
         :content-language;
        bh=26EC83Gk2GCHHGY8af5UCS7vpv0YIlqeMc8LiyepEDo=;
        b=irETyEbfGjHw6CSbWAI34cBhIb2HOr9+XxvF9jMwGjYBaUGxGRfWVqCQo7IWlwoi+L
         MdmhyhbTrVbKxbDWBUKdO++tnuG9H2vyag9ico5XXudXGURSC/jmPQiLhdesDo1n8V/2
         FCLbGlgY0/XoR6CS9w8U6NDrgMciy6fUq7bEg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:organization:message-id
         :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer
         :thread-index:content-language;
        b=DuwMkoDW4ZuFbsB1rKgsOo5yecXiRJ+sgkgQBGnCCjI9XgXS96T/W+nw7MF1QKQDTU
         CI6URiBy322HXcTWdKQ6pmNC8nN5QQYRG6Dmx+hrDjrDyLUVuJA8VHP4aCrmFeVe7K+1
         jzav7TuSBB+xRV4VYSHJsA1oiP3wufteBkXjQ=
Received: by 10.216.63.81 with SMTP id z59mr25506835wec.91.1294589713615;
        Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:15:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from WinEight (66.94.112.87.dyn.plus.net [87.112.94.66])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 7sm13576132wet.0.2011.01.09.08.15.12
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:15:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Jon Harrop <jonathandeanharrop@googlemail.com>
To: "'bluestorm'" <bluestorm.dylc@gmail.com>,
        "'caml-list caml-list'" <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>
References: <699537.6718.qm@web111509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <87vd20plpv.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <AANLkTikxCSQ+0XkOmSVDb3EWq_2oQ0pac3bDgc7f7jq+@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=GOgfkJ-cZO6oi1ZgdqyfDoRzwLyMLkYsXKoNS@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=GOgfkJ-cZO6oi1ZgdqyfDoRzwLyMLkYsXKoNS@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 16:15:03 -0000
Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy
Message-ID: <01d101cbb018$6038ccf0$20aa66d0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcuurOA+MgvlevamRZqXa2pETYB/WABax8pQ
Content-Language: en-gb
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Purity and lazyness

Bluestorm wrote:
> You need lazyness because you want to build a cyclic data structure.
> But is this such a good idea? In my experience, implicit cyclicity
> often raises more problems than it solves, and it is much safer to
> use an explicit indirection layer.

Don't closures often end up forming cyclic data structures on the heap that
are a good idea and don't cause problems?

Cheers,
Jon.