> > Right now, there is one rule: if the type of any variable bound in the >> pattern is unlifted, then the pattern is an unlifter-var pattern and is >> strict. >> > > I think the intuition I followed so far was "bindings with unlifted *RHS* > are strict". >
This is a very different rule indeed! And one which gives a strict semantic to the initial offender. But there are holes in it: if I `let (x, y) = blah in …` and `x` is at an unlifted type, the pattern _needs_ to be strict (this is solved by the current rule as described by Richard) despite the rhs being at a lifted type. That's because binding `x` forces the pattern anyway, by definition. There are questions about nested patterns, as well. What about `let (U x, y) = blah in …`, where `U` is some unlifted type. Is the nested `U x` pattern strict? or is it lazy? There is no corresponding right-hand side. This is all a tad tricky, I must say.
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
