RE: new pragma name ideas? (was: defunctionalization)

So the idea here to make it possible to have a function that can be specialized at certain types, and explicitly inlined at specific use sites, but ghc otherwise will not inline it? Cool! That's almost exactly what INLINABLE means. I agree that SPECIALISABLE would have been a better name. The only difference between INLINABLE and what you say is that GHC is *free* to inline an INLINABLE if it thinks it'd be a good idea, whereas you want a promise that it will never do so. (I'm not sure why.) But they are pretty close already. My suggestion * Rename INLINABLE to SPECIALISABLE (deprecating the former) * Allow SPECIALISABLE in conjunction with the existing NOINLINE Simon From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Nicolas Frisby Sent: 18 July 2013 23:19 To: ghc-devs@haskell.org Subject: new pragma name ideas? (was: defunctionalization) On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Carter Schonwald mailto:carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote: So the idea here to make it possible to have a function that can be specialized at certain types, and explicitly inlined at specific use sites, but ghc otherwise will not inline it? Cool! one thought: might it be simpler to instead have something like EXPLICIT-INLINABLE, rather that requiring the juxtaposition of two pragmas which "seem" contradictory? I like that idea. How about SPECIALISABLE? This is a nod to the possibility that GHC might someday automatically specialize an imported function. Or EXPOSE? Or EXTERNAL? Bikeshed activate!