From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p07FZpqT031609 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 16:35:51 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmsFADfBJk1ii1thZWdsb2JhbACDd5FxMY4xCgkYBSGuLDyCFYRzhiABBAQBgRyDN3QEhGeJQA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,289,1291590000"; d="scan'208";a="86281617" Received: from nm27.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com ([98.139.91.97]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 07 Jan 2011 16:35:45 +0100 Received: from [98.139.91.69] by nm27.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Jan 2011 15:35:45 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.16] by tm9.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Jan 2011 15:35:45 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1016.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Jan 2011 15:35:45 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 117451.32987.bm@omp1016.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 7214 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Jan 2011 15:35:44 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1294414544; bh=yGIY2Tl7YjjQ9ChvRRphx1aR9nHAE7upcKDhOZXCxvw=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=wjs9uCXM1URAlfKfNIq/f4+QT7hVsLth3M6KPR9Peoc8Ro5+tuDzEM6AKUhoHG9bL3v43TczMxHLZpoZvE4h7eZ1cDtKtIVr3fHBvvmrapamABIchvQPFm1FgOrDlN6o60BzRrlKtlCWs18PYwZ0KnPsxqZlrTcZw0A6iBiCIvc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=KwYexI7Y8R5FuBXEyY1aOLWfv5aIJff3XbpalNjhHnjn2YmtZ9FoVF+01nMFUJGhMZBwa+BJKKKs403yCG9bbbcZtEHKWwuF92vlJsHavc8roOrSUgBRSXitKlfBW//Nw+D+uqJq9/h7uEYZxfPqCw3LenzfoW8MRYtbDjLvYBM=; Message-ID: <699537.6718.qm@web111509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: Hq8pUXsVM1nit1JQvwjkHQrraMgxvpBFuoHJD8oEYFn3RxS kCfqkJrcLwgL2FXMuDUvtnRt5vO9RxQYQ9fP4T0uuzhyptvWLJ_2SOo5TW0K Cw4cNetia9pUNWr.mvsF28aItIZ5RK65lWppT42MI646Ry3bV9_5.I1NB6h7 rUPZu7Gx_Rt96crb4gSG9HqBZjq9bFHGfMZu5hFni1IBbLHZ1pY4KX248ZQa w9r3l0RH7oCO6zdPVOPzHNX3IR9wxiaAyiDd.zl5PKKyUXLL7kDacG96QnbJ PRlqL6MHYAEnwALB9D3Rarbc5uiMwR5Xo1SADQexvQvR0MXr3jwgXHzK4kEz hQNY5uRJ063TifqT4Tja8Je0TF6NEy1Wq3tVexnR7i0WcNAZoYlni9YZguyB TOqzvjcGwLifI Received: from [213.205.70.201] by web111509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 07:35:44 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/11.4.20 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.285259 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 07:35:44 -0800 (PST) From: Dario Teixeira To: caml-list@inria.fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id p07FZpqT031609 Subject: [Caml-list] Purity and lazyness Hi, I have a question which though not strictly Ocaml-centric, I reckon is not completely off-topic for this list. In presentations by Haskellers, lazyness and purity are often portrayed as going hand in hand. Now, I can see why a language which is lazy by default would also need to be pure, since side-effects would be indeed very messy if evaluation order is not predictable. However, I cannot see the converse, that is, I don't see why purity would require lazyness. So, my question is whether there is something I'm missing and in fact "purity <=> lazyness", or I am reading too much from those Haskeller presentations, because they never meant to say anything beyond "lazyness => purity", and freely mixing the two was just a casual oversight. Your thoughts? Best regards, Dario Teixeira