Does OCaml actually need to apply special semantics to ; or do those already come with strictness? Thanks for the response BTW, this is one of those things I've always wondered about.
> And the way I was speaking I mean to say that "mutable state is natural" too. I don't know that it is universally, but it's certainly something that makes 90% of programmers today feel comfortable.
If you look through the SML definition [0] you'll see there is a semantics for declarations separated by ; specifically. It's nothing much more than sequential operation. If you had CBN then sequential effects wouldn't be, but you can define that order explicitly in CBV.
> And the way I was speaking I mean to say that "mutable state is natural" too. I don't know that it is universally, but it's certainly something that makes 90% of programmers today feel comfortable.
Well, as long as time and change are considered.