On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Edward Z. Yang <ezy...@mit.edu> wrote:
> Excerpts from David Feuer's message of Fri Sep 07 12:06:00 -0400 2012: > > They're not *usually* desirable, but when the code has been proven not to > > fall into bottom, there doesn't seem to be much point in ensuring that > > things will work right if it does. This sort of thing only really makes > > sense when using Haskell as a compiler target. > > OK, so it sounds like what you're more looking for is a way of giving > extra information to GHC's strictness analyzer, so that it is more > willing to unbox/skip making thunks even when the analyzer itself isn't > able to figure it out. But it seems to me that in any such case, there > might be a way to add seq's which have equivalent effect. > But in the case that you've independently proven the code correct, it would be much more convenient to just tell GHC to "trust me" with a flag rather than having to go analyse and edit the code to put in the required seqs (thereby breaking the proof too...) > > Edward > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe