From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558F4BB84 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 22:17:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k73KHhdi025925 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 22:17:43 +0200 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA05371 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 22:17:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.181]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k73KHYHu004370 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 22:17:42 +0200 Received: from rosella (ppp30-178.lns1.syd6.internode.on.net [59.167.30.178]) by smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k73KHKmQ057283; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 05:47:21 +0930 (CST) (envelope-from skaller@users.sourceforge.net) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] strict? From: skaller To: Francis Dupont Cc: "O'Caml Mailing List" In-Reply-To: <200608030708.k7378r8t003721@tao.fdupont.fr> References: <200608030708.k7378r8t003721@tao.fdupont.fr> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 06:17:20 +1000 Message-Id: <1154636240.5206.11.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 44D259E7.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 44D259DE.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; 2006:98 inventor:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 sourceforge:01 caml-list:01 simplify:01 argument:01 programming:03 confused:03 applied:04 thu:05 bottom:93 bottom:93 definition:07 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 09:08 +0200, Francis Dupont wrote: > 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: well .. I'll simplify it then: "I'm confused" :) -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net