yeah, I doublevote for deepSeq being part of the libraries or a
'blessed' extension. I would like to do things like deepSeq the abstract
tree of a compiled language then force a GC, thus making sure that the
original file text gets all cleaned up properly. deepSeq would be a much
nicer way of dealing with some efficiency issues since it can be
completly seperated from the implementation of code which generates a
data structure, rather than having to 'seq' at every step, you just
deepSeq the resulting structure.
John
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 08:58:06AM -0800, Hal Daume wrote:
> Dean Herington wrote:
> >
> > `seq` forces evaluation of only the top-level construct in its first
> > argument. (($!) similarly for its second argument.) I would guess your
> > "newcounts" are structured (probably a tuple or list), in which case you are
> > not forcing evaluation deeply enough. See
> > http://haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2001-August/001581.html and followup
> > article.
>
> As someone who also had this problem a while ago, I'm curious
> why DeepSeq never made it into the Libraries. This would, imo,
> be something quite generally useful (and it would be really nice
> to be able to derive it).
>
> - Hal
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Meacham - California Institute of Technology, Alum. - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
