deepseq: Add more instances. #50

Carter Schonwald carter.schonwald at
Fri Feb 7 18:59:58 UTC 2020

aka, we shouldn't provide instances for stuff thats not "NF'able", so that
these tricky bits aren't invisible, right?

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 8:37 PM Evan Laforge <qdunkan at> wrote:

> As I understand, the case for against is: I have a space leak, I'll try
> rnf on this data. Space leak is still present, so it must not be due to
> that data, so I go to the next idea.  But if there's something in there
> that rnf silently skipped, then I'll be misled.  It would be nice if the
> compiler will warn me where the possibly leaking bits that rnf can't help
> with, which is presumably closures and explicit pointers.
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 3:43 AM Andrew Martin <andrew.thaddeus at>
> wrote:
>> My understanding of the argument for and against is:
>> * For: Typeclass instances should be provided for as many types as
>> possible, and IORef, TVar, etc. only admit a single way to define NFData
>> * Against: Intuitively, NFData means that data is plain old sums and
>> products all the way down, all of which can be forced. This would mean that
>> anything with an NFData instance should be able to go into a compact region
>> (except that pinned byte arrays, and consequently bytestrings, cannot)
>> I'm inclined to agree with most of the opinions expressed earlier on the
>> thread. That is, given how minor the convenience is, the confusion is
>> probably not worth the convenience. I'll think about this more today.
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 7:55 PM Travis Whitaker <pi.boy.travis at>
>> wrote:
>>> Greetings Haskellers,
>>> I am writing to draw your attention to
>>> This PR adds NFData instances for UArray, ForeignPtr, and TVar. The
>>> instances for ForeignPtr and TVar have proven to be somewhat controversial.
>>> I'll refer to these as "reference types" from here on out, since similar
>>> concerns have been raised with respect to e.g. IORef. I think the arguments
>>> presented here apply equally well to IORef.
>>> In summary: the argument against these instances is that rnf forces the
>>> evaluation of the reference value itself, not the value referred to by the
>>> reference. This is potentially confusing to NFData users. For example, a
>>> user might expect that calling force on a TVar value will leave the value
>>> to which the TVar refers in normal form. If this assumption doesn't hold,
>>> the user's program will leak thunks.
>>> The argument for these instances is as follows: whether or not a
>>> reference value is in normal form has nothing to do with whether or not the
>>> referred-to value is in normal form. For example, consider ForeignPtr.
>>> ForeignPtr's type constructor argument is just a phantom. Each ForeignPtr
>>> value is just an Addr# with some finalizers. Whether or not these values
>>> are in normal form has nothing to do with whether or not the value the
>>> enclosed address may (or may not!) point to is in normal form. Indeed, an
>>> NFData instance for ForeignPtr, TVar, or IORef that attempted to force the
>>> referred-to value would require unsafe IO.
>>> I'm curious to hear other's thoughts about these arguments. I'm hopeful
>>> that the proposed instances may be added, since I've encountered these
>>> instances as orphans on numerous occasions.
>>> Thanks for your time,
>>> Travis Whitaker
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> Libraries at
>> --
>> -Andrew Thaddeus Martin
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Libraries mailing list