isn't: let x = 1:x cyclic, but without closure? unless closure is so broad as to capture essentially any haskell value. it's not going to be obvious when

isn't: let x = 1:x cyclic, but without closure? unless closure is so broad as to capture essentially any haskell value. it's not going to be obvious when there is a cyclic reference (e.g. if you use `let x = repeat 1` instead of the definition above)