ANNOUNCE: deepseq-

Simon Marlow marlowsd at
Thu Nov 19 06:36:12 EST 2009

On 18/11/2009 12:12, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 09:17:31AM +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> I don't feel terribly strongly, but I have a slight preference for the
>> current version.
> I think something like
>      deepseq :: a ->  (a ->  b) ->  b
> would be best, so that it doesn't suffer from

I don't mind supplying that too, with a comment to explain why it's 
there.  Although we could recommend that people use the bang-pattern 
idiom instead, where that's available.

The main question still to be resolved is what names to use.  I agree 
with Duncan's point that deepseq should have the same type as seq, to 
reduce confusion.  So then what shall we call the a -> () version?

One possibility is to go back to calling it rnf.  Any other ideas?


More information about the Libraries mailing list