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 <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!