On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 01:32:48PM +0100, David Luposchainsky wrote:
On 29.11.2013 13:19, Twan van Laarhoven wrote:
In the same vein as strict fmap, does a strict (<*>) make sense as well?
I think this brings up a good point: strictness annotations may make sense in multiple other scenarios, not just for fmap. Can't we encapsulate similar functionality in a separate function first, wait for it to settle, and then introduce infix versions of it if really necessary?
What about
seqM :: Monad m => m a -> m a seqM m = m >>= (return $!)
I think this is an excellent idea. It makes sense to address the issue in the simplest, most generic way possible first and then later provide specialised functions when they have been shown to have widespread real-world usage. Tom (PS I note this is yet another example of the invisible Thunk type constructor causing problems!)