formatting

dialogues.md

@@ -1379,13 +1379,15 @@ The pattern matching above will fail if f is not bijective.
 
 ## pseq, seq, sparks
 
-
+```
 16:24 < Lindrian> sparks in haskell seem so... unintuitive
-16:24 < Lindrian> It doesnt really follow the traditional sense of how you use threads, which might be why I find it odd
+16:24 < Lindrian> It doesnt really follow the traditional sense of how you use threads,
+which might be why I find it odd
 16:25 < qu1j0t3> this might also be a very good thing :-)
 16:26 < Lindrian> why?
 16:28 < Lindrian> I need to remember the functionality of seq, par and pseq.
-16:28 < Lindrian> seq forces evaluation of the first argument, before returning the second? par creates a "spark" that allows the first argument to be evaluated at the same time the second is being returned?
+16:28 < Lindrian> seq forces evaluation of the first argument, before returning the second?
+par creates a "spark" that allows the first argument to be evaluated at the same time the second is being returned?
 16:28 < Lindrian> I thinkkkkk
 16:30 < Lindrian> damn cant remember pseq, gotta look it up
 16:31 < Lindrian> oh right, pseq evaluates the left before returning the right, guaranteed.
@@ -1399,13 +1401,15 @@ The pattern matching above will fail if f is not bijective.
 16:54 < zwer_z> IIRC in ghc seq will always evaluate to error "one", while haskell (the language) allows either
 16:55 < Lindrian> i read seq as "try to evaluate the first argument, but compiler might think otherwise"
 16:55 < ski> Lindrian : yes, `pseq a b' guarantees `a' is forced before `b'. `seq a b' doesn't
-16:56 < ski> (i think in `seq a b' you're not even guaranteed that `a' is forced before `b' is returned .. as long as it will happen eventually)
+16:56 < ski> (i think in `seq a b' you're not even guaranteed that `a' is forced before `b' is
+returned .. as long as it will happen eventually)
 16:56 < zwer> ski I think there's a lack of guarantee only if both a and b are bottom.
 16:57 < zwer> > seq (error "foo") 10
 16:57 < lambdabot>  *Exception: foo
 16:57 < zwer> whereas that should always evaluate to bottom
 16:58 < benzrf> iirc
-16:58 < ski> zwer : consider `seq (seq (error "foo") ()) (error "bar")' -- i think this can legally raise `error "bar"'
+16:58 < ski> zwer : consider `seq (seq (error "foo") ()) (error "bar")' -- i think this can legally
+raise `error "bar"'
 16:58 < benzrf> the haskell spec only says
 16:58 < benzrf> seq bottom anything = bottom
 16:58 < ski> yes
@@ -1417,9 +1421,12 @@ The pattern matching above will fail if f is not bijective.
 17:03 < zwer> ski a is entire inner seq, which may not be evaluated
 17:05 < ski> yes
 17:05 < ski> (i think i used a different argument, though. i can't recall it atm)
-17:06 < ski> Lindrian : both will evaluate to WHNF. `pseq' guarantees sequential *ordering*. `seq' just guarantees 
-             that both will be forced
+17:06 < ski> Lindrian : both will evaluate to WHNF. `pseq' guarantees sequential *ordering*.
+`seq' just guarantees that both will be forced
 17:07 < Lindrian> pseq guarantees the first argument is evaluated to WHNF before the second, while seq doesnt. Ok.
-17:07 < ski> `seq' is specified using "denotational semantics", which only talks about the final value/denotation of an evaluation, not how you can get to it
-17:08 < ski> `pseq' would need to be specified using "operational semantics", which talks in terms of rewriting steps (so there's an inherent ordering that we talk about here)
+17:07 < ski> `seq' is specified using "denotational semantics", which only talks about the
+final value/denotation of an evaluation, not how you can get to it
+17:08 < ski> `pseq' would need to be specified using "operational semantics", which talks in terms of
+rewriting steps (so there's an inherent ordering that we talk about here)
 17:08  * ski nods to Lindrian
+```