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 7F394BB84 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:09:06 +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 k73795aL020048 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:09:06 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA27938 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:09:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from tao.fdupont.fr (tao.fdupont.fr [82.236.136.93]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7378vVq020013 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:09:05 +0200 Received: from tao.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tao.fdupont.fr (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k7378sdS003724; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:08:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from tao.fdupont.fr (dupont@localhost) by tao.fdupont.fr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) with ESMTP id k7378r8t003721; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:08:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200608030708.k7378r8t003721@tao.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: skaller Cc: "O'Caml Mailing List" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] strict? In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:13:25 +1000. <1154582005.8167.68.camel@rosella.wigram> Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:08:52 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 44D1A111.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 44D1A109.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; semantics:01 semantics:01 vuillemin:01 inventor:98 inventor:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 argument:01 argument:01 programming:03 applied:04 bottom:93 bottom:93 uses:06 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 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.