duncan.coutts: > I don't think I'm just speaking for myself when I say that pseq is > confusing and the docs similarly. > > Given the type > > a -> b -> b > > we would assume that it is lazy in it's first arg and strict in the > second. (Even in the presence of seq we know that it really really must > be strict in it's second arg since it returns it or _|_ in which case > it's still strict). > > Of course we know of the seq primitive with this type that is strict in > both. However we also now have pseq that has the _opposite_ "static" > strictness to the original expected strictness.
Could you state "static" strictness as a StrictCheck property? I'm not quite sure what this distinction means, actually. -- Don _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
