On 05/01/2022 12.39, Georgi Lyubenov wrote:
I have an additional question:
It is true that in a strict/unboxed language, the type of () is sufficient to reproduce its value. However, here, trying to store undefined :: () is no different from trying to store () :: (). Is this difference in behaviour with other instances of Storable (where presumably trying to store undefined will blow up, as there is indeed some work to do there) intentionally ignored?
If you look at it from the strict-by-default point of view, it does appear inconsistent with the other instances. However, if you look at it from the non-strict-by-default point of view, which is arguably more native to Haskell, then all instances follow the same principle: they are maximally non-strict. It's just when you store anything non-trivial, you are forced to be strict in order to fulfill the task, but you never add any gratuitous strictness. Roman