From: skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Jason Smith <jns28@student.canterbury.ac.nz>
Cc: Richard Jones <rich@annexia.org>,
caml-list <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] laziness
Date: 06 Sep 2004 20:18:29 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1094465907.3352.1093.camel@pelican.wigram> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <413A8C36@webmail>
On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 19:07, Jason Smith wrote:
> The compiler should optimize it out. There shouldn't be any need for using
> explicit print statements.
Yes but the original issue is that the programmer
is seeing an expression they expect to be evaluated
and it isn't being evaluated -- so there is a bug
somewhere. So your point is kind of backwards --
the compiler may well optimise it away, but the programmer
is actually looking for evidence that it *isn't*
optimised away.
In an eager language, no conclusions can be drawn
from a debugging output - you still don't know
if the returned value is used or not.
In a lazy language, debugging output indicates
the code *is* being used and hence not dead,
and lack of output means it isn't, at least
in one particular environment. You might
investigate further and discover the result
is only used in an unreachable branch of a match,
so the code really is dead: that function argument
will never be used (so you can remove it,
and also the unreachable branch).
--
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-06 10:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-06 9:07 Jason Smith
2004-09-06 10:18 ` skaller [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-09-06 12:17 Jason Smith
2004-09-06 17:00 ` skaller
2004-09-06 9:16 Jason Smith
2004-09-05 1:07 Jason Smith
2004-09-05 5:46 ` skaller
2004-09-06 0:57 ` Richard Jones
2004-09-06 6:11 ` Nicolas Cannasse
2004-09-06 8:24 ` skaller
2004-09-06 8:44 ` Erik de Castro Lopo
2004-09-06 12:55 ` Jon Harrop
2004-09-06 16:21 ` William Lovas
2004-09-06 22:35 ` Hartmann Schaffer
2004-09-07 8:31 ` Richard Jones
2004-09-07 8:37 ` Nicolas Cannasse
2004-09-04 6:30 skaller
2004-09-04 8:40 ` Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
2004-09-04 11:21 ` skaller
2004-09-04 11:49 ` Richard Jones
2004-09-04 20:40 ` Hartmann Schaffer
2004-09-05 10:50 ` Jon Harrop
2004-09-05 14:07 ` skaller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1094465907.3352.1093.camel@pelican.wigram \
--to=skaller@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr \
--cc=jns28@student.canterbury.ac.nz \
--cc=rich@annexia.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).