Excerpts from David Feuer's message of Fri Sep 07 12:06:00 -0400 2012: > They're not *usually* desirable, but when the code has been proven not to > fall into bottom, there doesn't seem to be much point in ensuring that > things will work right if it does. This sort of thing only really makes > sense when using Haskell as a compiler target.
OK, so it sounds like what you're more looking for is a way of giving extra information to GHC's strictness analyzer, so that it is more willing to unbox/skip making thunks even when the analyzer itself isn't able to figure it out. But it seems to me that in any such case, there might be a way to add seq's which have equivalent effect. Edward _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe