seq#: do we actually need it as a primitive?
Edward Z. Yang
ezyang at mit.edu
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' #) ?
More information about the ghc-devs