On 18/11/2009 12:12, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 09:17:31AM +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
I don't feel terribly strongly, but I have a slight preference for the current version.
I think something like
deepseq :: a -> (a -> b) -> b
would be best, so that it doesn't suffer from
I don't mind supplying that too, with a comment to explain why it's there. Although we could recommend that people use the bang-pattern idiom instead, where that's available. The main question still to be resolved is what names to use. I agree with Duncan's point that deepseq should have the same type as seq, to reduce confusion. So then what shall we call the a -> () version? One possibility is to go back to calling it rnf. Any other ideas? Cheers, Simon