From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_RANDY
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,75a8a3664688f227
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-10 14:04:09 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.iac.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Parameter Modes, In In Out and Out
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:50:24 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Message-ID: <93iler$j5r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <Zmt56.57012$ca6.937797@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
 <7Cx56.90736$A06.3322588@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
 <937jab$s23$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A57CD7F.2228BFD5@brighton.ac.uk>
 <938p3u$omv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93cagm$c1j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93e4e6$ucg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93encq$brm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93f6ar$m44$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93flab$2mh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93fqau$6m2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101091641170.3696-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 10 21:50:24 2001 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; U)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x57.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3878
Date: 2001-01-10T21:50:24+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article
<Pine.BSF.4.21.0101091641170.3696-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
  Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:

> Explain please. There are languages which are referentially
> transparent  which are also strict/eager. Mercury and Opal
> come to mind (see, I can play the obscure language game as
> well as anyone :).

I use the term RT in the sense that Miranda uses it (i.e. the
way Dave Turner would use it), and in that sense, it implies
laziness.

For example, if I have a projection function

  x (a,b) = b

then I must be able to replace x(b) with x(a,b) for any
possible a, and that includes computations which if done
eagerly would cause an infinite recursion.

It's just a matter of use of words, so just understand that
when I used RT as a term, I was using it in this sense. I can
guess at the way you use the term from your examples, and
that's just fine, but rather irrelevant to the discussion at
hand.


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/