[Haskell-cafe] Haskell with all the safeties off

Ramana Kumar Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk
Sat Sep 8 10:20:29 CEST 2012

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>

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list