Content deleted Content added
Line 40:
: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)
::It is true that non-strict evaluation has the same [[partial correctness]] behavior as strict evaluation; in practice it doesn't really make that much difference because function arguments rarely diverge, but it's certainly an interesting aspect to note. Be careful when talking about "meaning", though — some would say that divergence is a meaning as well, in which case non-strict evaluation does change the meaning of some programs. Anyway, I'm not opposed to including that fact — it just needs to be phrased very carefully to avoid hitting any of the (absurdly many) loaded words in formal PL. --[[User:Donhalcon|bmills]] 18:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
| |||