# Strictness without ordering, or confusion

From HaskellWiki

As the Haskell 2010 Report does not specify any order of evaluation with respect to its parameters, the name of the primitive `seq :: a -> b -> b`

is a misnomer.

Introduce the primitive `amid`

, with the same (Haskell 2010 Report) requirements:

```
infixr 0 `amid`
primtive amid :: a -> b -> b
infixr 0 $!
($!) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
f $! x = x `amid` f x
```

This frees the name "seq" for use with a new primitive, analogous to the GHC primitive `pseq`

, but not restricted to parallel programming.

If needed, "amidst" is one alternate basename for the *deepseq* library and its definitions.

Atravers 01:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)