19 Nov
2009
19 Nov
'09
6:52 a.m.
Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Simon Marlow wrote:
So then what shall we call the a -> () version? One possibility is to go back to calling it rnf.
In light of apfelmus' comment, I vote for rnf.
And in that case, how about the analogous alternative for seq itself:
hnf :: a -> ()
I think it would be whnf since it doesn't evaluate under lambdas. I also vote for rnf, because we should have a good reason for changing names of things. Ganesh =============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ===============================================================================