<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body><div>Actually, I just had a thought. What if we ran ST computations with a different state token type? Say, State# FakeWorld? Would that let them escape the hack?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div id="composer_signature"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757">David Feuer</div><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757">Well-Typed, LLP</div></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: David Feuer <david@well-typed.com> </div><div>Date: 3/15/17 6:38 AM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: GHC developers <ghc-devs@haskell.org> </div><div>Subject: Another strictness analysis wrinkle </div><div><br></div></div><div>I don't see how we can take advantage of this, but IO and ST seem quite different from a strictness analysis perspective. The whole I/O hack is completely unnecessary for ST. Ugh.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div id="composer_signature"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757">David Feuer</div><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757">Well-Typed, LLP</div></div></body></html>