Talk:Strict programming language: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:28, 10 February 2024

Latest revision as of 08:57, 14 January 2025

Line 39:

::Consider the following example in typed lambda calculus, which takes a boolean and two functional thunks and returns another thunk:

<syntaxhighlight lang="text">

<code>

&lambda; b : (unit -> a) -> (unit -> a) -> a. &lambda; tr : unit -> a. &lambda; fa : unit -> a. &lambda; u : unit. b tr fa

</syntaxhighlight>

</code>

::In this case, b could be a suspended [[Church encoding]] of "true" or "false":

<syntaxhighlight lang="text">

<code>

true := &lambda; tr : unit -> a. &lambda; fa : unit -> a. tr ()

false := &lambda; tr : unit -> a. &lambda; fa : unit -> a. fa ()

</syntaxhighlight>

</code>

::So all you really need are functions and unit; non-strictness is just a matter of convenience if you don't want to deal with explicitly invoking your thunks. I won't claim it's not convenient, because it is; but it's not really a matter of expressiveness. --[[User:Donhalcon|bmills]] 19:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)