On 3/18/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, the caller could invoke addmul using a bang patterns, as in
>
> let ( !s, !p ) = addmul x y
> in ...
>
> but that's quite different to statically knowing (from the type) that
> the two results of addmul will already be evaluated. The latter leaves
> room for more optimisations.
I looked back at this, and I'm not sure that this statement (which
appears to be the core reason for considering this) is true at all. I
don't see that more optimization follows from the availability of
information regarding the strictness of a function result's
subcomponents.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
