[Haskell] semantice of seq

[Duncan Coutts]

On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 09:44 -0400, roconnor at theorem.ca wrote:
> Would the problematic semantics of seq be resolved if seq did nothing on 
> function types?  That is to say
> 
> seq (\x -> undefined `asTypeOf` x) y reduced to y
> 
> and
> 
> seq (undefined `asTypeOf` id) y also reduced to y

I don't think so. You'd also have to avoid polymorphic types since they
can be used at function types. Basically you'd have to bring back the
Seq class. The rationale for removing the class and making seq
polymorphic is mentioned in the history of Haskell draft paper that was
recently advertised.

Duncan