Proposal: Strict scanl, scanl1 and mapAccumL

Bas van Dijk v.dijk.bas at
Mon Nov 12 12:02:28 CET 2012

On 12 November 2012 11:34, Bas van Dijk <v.dijk.bas at> wrote:
> I just realized that mapAccumL' is not needed since the caller has the
> ability to force the accumlator. So please ignore that part of my
> proposal. This leaves just scanl' and scanl1' as orignally proposed by
> Niklas Hambüchen.

Oops scrap that. After thinking about it more and testing it I realize
the caller really doesn't have control over the evaluation order in
the function passed to mapAccumL. So please consider my original
proposal again.

Sorry for the noise.


More information about the Libraries mailing list