On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 02:28:21PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > | That contradicts my intution for seq. I would read it as "h is forced > | before h is forced", and I would think that (h `seq` h) is equivalent > | to h. > | > | Were I am wrong? > > You're not wrong -- Malcolm is. The function is certainly strict in h, > and GHC finds it.
I will only add that I am aware that my wording is imprecise. It's more like "Forcing (a `seq` b) forces a, then forces b, and then returns the value of b, unless a is bottom or b is bottom - in which case it returns bottom". Best regards, Tom -- .signature: Too many levels of symbolic links _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
