Hi, in further attempts to get a better understanding of list fusion, I am investigating under what conditions, calls to concat and concatMap succesfully fusion away. Here is my test code: import System.Exit func0 :: Int -> Bool func0 n = any (>5) [1..n] {-# NOINLINE func0 #-} func1 :: Int -> Bool func1 n = any (>5) (concatMap (\m -> [1..m]) [1..n]) {-# NOINLINE func1 #-} func2 :: Int -> Bool func2 n = any (>5) (concat (map (\m -> [1..m]) [1..n])) {-# NOINLINE func2 #-} func3 :: Int -> Bool func3 n = any (>5) [ i | m <- [1..n] , i <- [1..m]] {-# NOINLINE func3 #-} func4 :: Int -> Bool func4 n = any (>5) ( let ok m = [ i | i <- [1..m] ] in concatMap ok [1..n] ) {-# NOINLINE func4 #-} main = if func0 10 && func1 10 && func2 10 && func3 10 && func4 10 then exitSuccess else exitFailure I deliberately did not use any putStr statements in main, so that I can easily spot list types in the output of ghc -fext-core. The use of "any" and "[...]" represent any fusion-enabled producers or consumers; these are just very well-behaving and easy to spot in the core output. Here are my obeservations: * The code generated for func0 does not use any lists at all, but rather one recursive (even tail-recursive) function, as expected. This was basically a test whether I am indeed able to observe list fusion. * func1 and func2 are not fused successfully; both core outputs still contain mentions of [] (search for ZMZN; is there a tool that does this unescaping for me? ghc-core does not, it seems.) * Now the surprising fact: func3 does without any lists! The code generated contains two nested recursive functions, the inner one even tail recursive (and the outer one could have been made tail-recursive, it seems, but that would be a different issue). * func4, which is a direct one-step translation of func3 according to the semantic rules of list comprehension in the haskell report, again is not fused completely. Now I wonder: How do I need to phrase the function with concatMap such that fusion works? Does ghc treat list comprehensions differently here? Do the rewrite rules need work so that func1 and func2 do fuse correctly? Thanks for your attention, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de | nomeata@debian.org | GPG: 0x4743206C xmpp: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/