Re: Does the Strict extension make monadic bindings strict?

I believe this is just a bug, since the desugaring ought to be strict in the \x. On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote: > I think this is a problem/bug in the implementation. In the "function > definitions" section of the wiki page it says the argument

Re: Does the Strict extension make monadic bindings strict?

I agree that this seems to be a bug. I have a lot to do currently, but might be able to look at it sometime during next week. Adam Sandberg Eriksson On Thu, 10 Dec 2015, at 03:34 PM, Johan Tibell wrote: > I believe this is just a bug, since the desugaring ought to be strict > in the \x. > > On

Re: Does the Strict extension make monadic bindings strict?

In which case, I've created a ticket to record this bug and to track its fix: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11193 On 10 December 2015 at 15:26, Adam Sandberg Eriksson < a...@sandbergericsson.se> wrote: > I agree that this seems to be a bug. I have a lot to do currently, but > might be

Re: Does the Strict extension make monadic bindings strict?

While there's a fundamental difference between (>>=) and let-bindings, it might be worth adding to the docs that -XStrict only makes let bindings strict. On 12/08/2015 06:22 PM, Rob Stewart wrote: > Are the following two programs equivalent with respect to the strictness > of `readFile`? > >

Does the Strict extension make monadic bindings strict?

Are the following two programs equivalent with respect to the strictness of `readFile`? --8<---cut here---start->8--- {-# LANGUAGE BangPatterns #-} module Main where main = do !contents <- readFile "foo.txt" print contents --8<---cut

Re: Does the Strict extension make monadic bindings strict?

I think this is a problem/bug in the implementation. In the "function definitions" section of the wiki page it says the argument will have a bang pattern. But then this code: do x <- ... return (x + 1) which is just a syntactic sugar for `... >>= \x -> return (x + 1)` doesn't have the