On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Lennart Augustsson <lenn...@augustsson.net> wrote: > Order of evaluation can be very important for memory use. So I can imagine > cases where seq would run out of memory, but pseq would not. >
That's fair enough. Do you think it's worth attempting to standardize the behavior of `seq` to be like `pseq`? > I would argue that pseq is almost always what you want, but seq has a nicer > denotational semantics. Is this the reason it wasn't standardized this way to begin with? Miranda's `seq` is like `pseq` (as was `seq` in other lazy language implementations) so it's not as if there wasn't precedent. _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
