Strictness without ordering, or confusion

From HaskellWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)