> What, precisely, is the definition of
> a constructor strict in a specified field? In particular, how do
> you define it, and implement it, if that field has a functional
> type? Remember, in Haskell function types are unlifted, so we
> should have (\_ -> bottom) = bottom.
Well, if you go f
Lennart makes the point that a different generalisation of Simon's
suggestion, namely strict constructors, would be more useful. Perhaps.
A point in favour of my suggestion is that unlifted products have
an easy semantic definition. What, precisely, is the definition of
a constructor strict in
Phil suggests that we add
newtype T a_1 ... a_k = C t_1 ... t_n
and use that to construct non-lifted ADTs. While this works
well, I'd prefer to have strictness annotations on construtors
instead. Haskell has very few means for making programs
more efficient when you really need it,
