Okay, thanks
I was pretty sure I was wrong (or else somebody would already have come up with that solution), but I wanted to know why.
On Friday 18 November 2011, 11:18:33, Yves Parès wrote:Yes, y `seq` y is precisely the same as y.
> 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?
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.