RE: inlining higher-order-functions?

| My example is complicated, so let me present a simpler analogy. | Suppose I defined | | compose :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> c) | compose f g = \x -> f (g x) | | I can easily persuade GHC to inline 'compose'. | But when 'compose' is applied to known arguments, I wish | f and g to be inlined in the body of 'compose'. | Is there a pragma that will do the trick? | (I attempted to put an INLINE pragma in a where clause, | but GHC was not amused.) You can put inline pragmas on f and g, thus frob = ... {-# INLINE frob #-} burk = ... {-# INLINE burk #-} wibble = compose from burk Now compose will be inlined (assuming it too has an INLINE pragma), and then frob, burk. Simon