Proposal: Strict scanl, scanl1 and mapAccumL

[Bas van Dijk]

On 12 November 2012 11:34, Bas van Dijk <v.dijk.bas at gmail.com> 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.

Bas