From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p07G7Wwo000557 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:07:35 +0100 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,289,1291590000"; d="scan'208";a="84637323" Received: from 250-120.msr-inria.inria.fr (HELO [10.0.1.3]) ([193.55.250.120]) by mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 07 Jan 2011 17:07:27 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Damien Doligez In-Reply-To: <699537.6718.qm@web111509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:07:26 +0100 Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Message-Id: References: <699537.6718.qm@web111509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> To: Dario Teixeira X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id p07G7Wwo000557 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Purity and lazyness On 2011-01-07, at 16:35, Dario Teixeira wrote: > 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. For an example of a pure non-lazy language, have a look at Erlang. -- Damien