Re: The Proper Definition of (evaluate :: a -> IO a)

Isaac Dupree wrote:

The obvious "evaluate x = x `seq` return x" fails one of the following laws for evaluate:

evaluate x `seq` y ==> y

I'm not sure why anyone thinks this "law" should hold, since it completely changes the known semantics of `seq`. A more accurate law would be: evaluate x `seq` y ==> if x==_|_ then _|_ else y Where did you find the erroneous version? Regards, Malcolm