On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
> I made an attempt at a better documentation for evaluate.
> See here: https://phabricator.haskell.org/D615
>
Wunderbar.
I especially liked the prescription at the end on when to use evaluate and
when to prefer (return $!).
-- Kim-Ee
___
I made an attempt at a better documentation for evaluate.
See here: https://phabricator.haskell.org/D615
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
eq#: do we actually need it as a primitive?
|
| No (2) would not suffer from #5129. Think of
|
|type IO a = State# -> (State#, a)
|return x = \s -> (s, x)
|(>>=) m k s = case m s of (s, r) -> k r s
|
| (it's a newtype actually, but this will do here).
|
| (2) sa
t;
> Simon
>
>
> | -Original Message-
> | From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of
> | Roman Cheplyaka
> | Sent: 08 January 2015 13:42
> | To: Edward Z. Yang; David Feuer
> | Cc: ghc-devs
> | Subject: Re: seq#: do we actually nee
: Edward Z. Yang; David Feuer
| Cc: ghc-devs
| Subject: Re: seq#: do we actually need it as a primitive?
|
| On 08/01/15 10:00, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
| > For posterity, the answer is no, and it is explained in this
| comment:
| > https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/5129#comment:2
|
On 08/01/15 15:42, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
> Also, where can I find the 'instance Monad IO' as understood by GHC?
> grep didn't find one.
Found it; it's in libraries/base/GHC/Base.hs. There are two spaces after
"instance"; that's why I didn't find it the first time.
Roman
_
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
> Also, where can I find the 'instance Monad IO' as understood by GHC?
> grep didn't find one.
It's in GHC.Base.
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listin
On 08/01/15 10:00, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> For posterity, the answer is no, and it is explained in this comment:
> https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/5129#comment:2
Thanks, this is helpful.
So we have three potential implementations for evaluate:
(1) \x -> return $! x
(2) \x -> (return $! x
For posterity, the answer is no, and it is explained in this comment:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/5129#comment:2
Edward
Excerpts from David Feuer's message of 2015-01-07 11:12:55 -0800:
> I've read about the inlining issues surrounding
> Control.Exception.evaluate that seem to have pr
