yeah, I doublevote for deepSeq being part of the libraries or a 'blessed' extension. I would like to do things like deepSeq the abstract tree of a compiled language then force a GC, thus making sure that the original file text gets all cleaned up properly. deepSeq would be a much nicer way of dealing with some efficiency issues since it can be completly seperated from the implementation of code which generates a data structure, rather than having to 'seq' at every step, you just deepSeq the resulting structure. John On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 08:58:06AM -0800, Hal Daume wrote:
Dean Herington wrote:
`seq` forces evaluation of only the top-level construct in its first argument. (($!) similarly for its second argument.) I would guess your "newcounts" are structured (probably a tuple or list), in which case you are not forcing evaluation deeply enough. See http://haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2001-August/001581.html and followup article.
As someone who also had this problem a while ago, I'm curious why DeepSeq never made it into the Libraries. This would, imo, be something quite generally useful (and it would be really nice to be able to derive it).
- Hal
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Meacham - California Institute of Technology, Alum. - john@repetae.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------