18 Nov
2011
18 Nov
'11
7:05 a.m.
(Sorry for the double mail)
...so there is no way to do that inside the function passed to modifySTRef?
In other words, there is no way to ensure *inside* a function that its
result will be evaluated strictly?
2011/11/18 Daniel Fischer
On Friday 18 November 2011, 11:18:33, Yves Parès wrote:
Instead of rewriting modifySTRef, why not just do :
modifySTRef counter (\x -> let y = x+1 in y `seq` y)
Is there a problem with that?
Yes, y `seq` y is precisely the same as y.
a `seq` b means whenever evaluation of b is demanded, also evaluate a (to WHNF). So y `seq` y ~> whenever evaluation of y is demanded, also evaluate y.