Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!tom@nw.stl.stc.co.uk
From: tom@nw.stl.stc.co.uk (Tom Thomsom)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
Subject: Re: Can laziness sometimes be too lazy?
Keywords: Domains as information systems, bottom, error
Message-ID: <3294@stl.stc.co.uk>
Date: 8 Aug 90 14:35:50 GMT
References: <2706@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> <3188@osc.COM> <3926@rex.cs.tulane.edu> <10268@brazos.Rice.edu>
Sender: news@stl.stc.co.uk
Reply-To: "Tom Thomson" <tom@stl.stc.co.uk>
Organization: STC Technology Limited, London Road, Harlow, Essex, UK
Lines: 19

In article <10268@brazos.Rice.edu> rama@titan.rice.edu (Ramarao Kanneganti) writes:
>result b? I claim that it is an error element, and it is above b. But
>any function which is strict in bottom is also strict in error, so any
>choice will be consistent.
Strange way of putting it.  
Trouble is assigning a meaning to "strict in error".
Normally "strict" means "does not transform bottom or top", and "strict in
bottom" means "does not transform bottom".  So "strict in error", by analogy,
would mean "does not transform error"; if that's what you meant, I am in 
TOTAL DISagreement with you - the information in the error can be used to derive
a result.
On the other hand, maybe you meant that any program that was going to try to
evaluate bottom would try to evaluate the error that occurred in the place
where the bottom would otherwise have been, ie if you were going to hit a 
bottom then you'ld hit an error if that particular bottom were turned into 
that; then I would agree with you.
 
Maybe if we are going to discuss both errors and strictness we need a definition
for phrases like "strict in error"?  Or maybe we shouldn't use such phrases?