[Haskell-cafe] Haskell with all the safeties off

[Edward Z. Yang]

Excerpts from David Feuer's message of Fri Sep 07 12:06:00 -0400 2012:
> They're not *usually* desirable, but when the code has been proven not to
> fall into bottom, there doesn't seem to be much point in ensuring that
> things will work right if it does. This sort of thing only really makes
> sense when using Haskell as a compiler target.

OK, so it sounds like what you're more looking for is a way of giving
extra information to GHC's strictness analyzer, so that it is more
willing to unbox/skip making thunks even when the analyzer itself isn't
able to figure it out.  But it seems to me that in any such case, there
might be a way to add seq's which have equivalent effect.

Edward