Content deleted Content added
Line 38:
::::At any rate, I'm definitely not saying that non-strictness isn't useful; I'm just saying that it doesn't give you any additional expressiveness. And I did use first-class functions in my example, because you asked about pure functional languages; however, you could equivalently formulate it in, say, C, using closure-passing style. --[[User:Donhalcon|bmills]] 03:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
:I think I wrote the disputed sentence, and I think I meant it in the following precise sense: when you switch from strict to non-strict semantics, all non-divergent programs continue to work with the same meaning as before, and additionally some formerly divergent programs acquire a meaning, i.e. the set of valid programs is a strict superset of what it was before. I don't think "more expressive" is a very good way of describing this, but it's an interesting property that ought to be mentioned somewhere. (Though it no longer holds if you add exceptions to the language, so maybe it doesn't have much practical relevance.) -- [[User:BenRG|BenRG]] 18:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
| |||