[jhc] Monad.ST

[Isaac Dupree]

Henning Thielemann wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> 
>> hmm, I looked at the code. I don't quite understand lazy ST, but I 
>> don't think that version you made is correct.  The writes (and reads) 
>> really may not be re-ordered based on which data is demanded when.  I 
>> think the distinctive thing about lazy ST is that the whole 
>> computation doesn't have to be executed before returning a result (so 
>> you can return an infinite list/computation, like, do{ a <- something; 
>> as <- recur; return (a:as) } ). But I can't figure out how to 
>> implement the correct behavior... (or if I'm just confused)...
> 
> Thank you for spotting the problem so quickly. I have pushed a patch 
> that hopefully solves the problem.

Hopefully.  I'm afraid that might still be too much interleaving; 
consider for example the definition of (>>) and (writeSTRef r a >> 
writeSTRef r b); probably neither write will even happen, because the 
result () won't be demanded! or (writeSTRef r a >> readSTRef r)

(Also don't forget interleaving in instance Applicative Lazy.ST, if the 
instances ultimately end up being involved)

> That is, maximum laziness would be achieved, if there would be a state-thread for every reference. 

indeed.  Do you know if even GHC achieves this maximum laziness?  I am 
undecided whether it is possible and/or practical.

-Isaac