seq#: do we actually need it as a primitive?

Edward Z. Yang ezyang at
Thu Jan 8 08:00:52 UTC 2015

For posterity, the answer is no, and it is explained in this comment:


Excerpts from David Feuer's message of 2015-01-07 11:12:55 -0800:
> I've read about the inlining issues surrounding
> Control.Exception.evaluate that seem to have prompted the creation of
> seq#, but I'm still missing something. Isn't  seq# a s    the same as
>   let !a' = a in (# s, a' #) ?
> David

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list