Weak Head Normal Form. (f x) ] = false (2) whnf [ x y ] = whnf [ x ] (3) in all other cases whnf [x] = true (4) Now, i have following expression:
WEAK HEAD YouTube
Web reduce terms to weak normal forms only. But then i read this wikipedia article where whnf is defined for the lambda calculus as follows: Web 1 there are already plenty of questions about weak head normal form etc. The first argument of seq will only be evaluated to weak head normal form. Web lambda calculus is historically significant. Weak head normal form means, the expression will only evaluate as far as necessary to reach to a data constructor. So, seq forced the list to be evaluated but not the components that make. But more importantly, working through the theory from its original viewpoint exposes us to different ways of thinking. Now, i have following expression: Web i have question about weak head normal form and normal form.
The evaluation of the first argument of seq will only happen when the. Web 1 there are already plenty of questions about weak head normal form etc. An expression in weak head normal form has been evaluated to the outermost data constructor or lambda abstraction (the head). An expression is in weak head normal form (whnf), if it is either: But then i read this wikipedia article where whnf is defined for the lambda calculus as follows: (f x) ] = false (2) whnf [ x y ] = whnf [ x ] (3) in all other cases whnf [x] = true (4) Aside from a healthy mental workout, we find lambda calculus is sometimes superior: Web evaluates its first argument to head normal form, and then returns its second argument as the result. A term in weak head normal form is either a term in head normal form or a lambda abstraction. The evaluation of the first argument of seq will only happen when the. But more importantly, working through the theory from its original viewpoint exposes us to different ways of thinking.
