[Haskell-cafe] Haskell with all the safeties off

[Ramana Kumar]

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Edward Z. Yang <ezyang at mit.edu> wrote:

> 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.
>

But in the case that you've independently proven the code correct, it would
be much more convenient to just tell GHC to "trust me" with a flag rather
than having to go analyse and edit the code to put in the required seqs
(thereby breaking the proof too...)


>
> Edward
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20120908/c0c7c382/attachment.htm>