OK, so I had a function that looks like transform :: [Word8] -> [Word16] It works nicely, but I'd like to use mutable state inside. No problem! Use the ST monad. Something like transform :: [Word8] -> [Word16] transform xs = runST (work xs) where work :: [Word8] -> ST s [Word16] Ah, yes, well there is one *small* problem... If you do that, the function becomes too strict. The input list is being read from disk by lazy I/O. With the original implementation, the input file gets read at the same time as the output file is written. But runST returns nothing until the *entire* input has been compressed. So writing to disk doesn't start until the entire file has been slurped up into memory. Anybody have any hints on how to get around this? My first thought was to break the ST computation into several seperate pieces. But, /by design/, you cannot do this. And here's why: main = do let r = runST $ newSTRef 0 let x = runST $ n <- readSTRef r; writeSTRef r (n+1); return n let y = runST $ n <- readSTRef r; writeSTRef r (n*2); return n print x print y Now what the hell does this print out? Because it appears, logically, that it ought to vary depending on the order in which x and y are accessed - a clear violation of referential integrity. Fortunately of course, by a clever dodge, this code doesn't actually type-check. That's great, because it has undefined semantics. But it's also a problem, since it's exactly the sort of thing I'd like to do. Come to think of it, how the heck does lazy I/O manage this trick? How come accessing the elements of the list in the wrong order doesn't cause the wrong data to end up in each cell, if each cell is just using unsafePerformIO to read the next byte from a normal file handle?