<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Edward Z. Yang <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ezyang@mit.edu" target="_blank">ezyang@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Excerpts from David Feuer's message of Fri Sep 07 12:06:00 -0400 2012:<br>
<div class="im">> They're not *usually* desirable, but when the code has been proven not to<br>
> fall into bottom, there doesn't seem to be much point in ensuring that<br>
> things will work right if it does. This sort of thing only really makes<br>
> sense when using Haskell as a compiler target.<br>
<br>
</div>OK, so it sounds like what you're more looking for is a way of giving<br>
extra information to GHC's strictness analyzer, so that it is more<br>
willing to unbox/skip making thunks even when the analyzer itself isn't<br>
able to figure it out. Â But it seems to me that in any such case, there<br>
might be a way to add seq's which have equivalent effect.<br></blockquote><div><br>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...)<br>
 </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Edward<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>