bug in language definition (strictness)

[Malcolm Wallace]

> What semantics would you like Haskell to have, in which (x `seq` y  
> `seq` e) and (y `seq` x `seq` e) are not equal?

I can easily imagine that (x `seq` y `seq` e) might have *two*  
semantic denotations:  bottom (Exception: stack overflow), and e.  And  
I would like to be able to choose which one I get (please).  This is  
the declared purpose of seq, namely "to improve performance by  
avoiding unneeded laziness".

Regards,
     Malcolm