On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:23:52AM +0200, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Ian Lynagh <igloo@earth.li> wrote:
>
> > Well, if there's a GHC code performance bug then we should fix it, but I
> > don't think we should use a workaround in the libraries that gives a
> > function the wrong strictness.
> >
>
> The generated core has the strictness we want

In your example, yes, but if f ignores its first argument then it
doesn't.

That's a good point. Do you have an alternate definition in mind that would work better?

-- Johan