john at repetae.net
Mon Mar 20 22:09:58 EST 2006
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 09:39:41AM -0500, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
> Apart from the syntactic issues, does anybody else support the idea of
> strict tuples as proposed? I just want to know whether I am alone on
> this before putting it on the wiki.
I have a few issues though, not entirely easy to articulate.
I worry about all the (! .. !) types that will appear in interfaces,
making things like (map fst) not work. It has been my experience that a
lot of things that should be strict that are obvious to the user, are
often obvious to the compiler as well. having the user place redundant
strictness annotations in can ofsucate where the actual performance
fixes are. As in, are lazy tuples actually a source of problems or are
we just guessing? ghc's strictness analyzer is pretty darn good, If
something is subtle enough for the compiler not to catch it, then the
programmer probably won't right off the bat either. it usually takes
profiling to determine where the human-fixable problems are.
strictness does not belong in the type system in general. strictness
annotations are attached to the data components and not type components
in data declarations because they only affect the desugaring of the
constructor, but not the run-time representation or the types in
general. attaching strictness info to types is just the wrong thing to
do in general I think.
however, strict tuples I think would have use in function returns,
no need to declare them as a separate type, just have
(! a,b !) desugar exactly to a `seq` b `seq` (a,b)
this avoids any type issues and the only time the strictness of a
constructor comes into play is in the constructor desugaring anyway, it
makes sense that strict tuples would be a simple desugaring to normal
tuples as well.
hope this makes sense...
John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
More information about the Haskell-prime