Strictness without ordering, or confusion
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.
- Thread: seq vs. pseq, Haskell mail archive.
Atravers 01:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)