I think that would make most sense given how important deep strictness can be in certain situations. A separate, very small package would also be reasonable. Don Stewart wrote:

Should NFData class and instances be in base?

Data.Strict ?

ganesh.sittampalam:

...

Hi,

NFData seems to be the "standard" deepseq-style class these days, but it lives in Control.Parallel.Strategies in the parallel package whereas it obviously has uses beyond this. Is there a case for moving it into its own package and module?

I'd also like to add something like

strictly :: (Monad m, NFData a) => m a -> m a strictly ma = do a <- ma rnf a `seq` return a

The most important use for this would be to provide a standard way to do strict IO:

strictly $ readFile "..." strictly $ hGetContents ...

Thoughts?

Cheers,

Ganesh

======================================================================

...

========= Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html

======================================================================

...

=========

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

=============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ===============================================================================

For a package I released recently I had to define the following operators: -- |Very strict monadic bind (>>=|) :: (Monad m, NFData a) => m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b m >>=| f = m >>= f $| rnf (>>|) :: (Monad m, NFData a) => m a -> m b -> m b m1 >>| m2 = m1 >>=| const m2 It would be nice if I could drop the dependency on parallel.