seq vs. pseq

[Ross Paterson]

On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 01:53:52PM +0000, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> So the doubly bizarre thing is that, actually, `seq` does not control
> the evaluation order (which is the only valid reason for wanting to use
> it in the first place), but nevertheless it undesirably changes the
> semantics of programs such that equational reasoning no longer holds.

When I've used seq, it's to ensure that a function is strict in that
argument, and therefore has been evaluated before the function is called.
(If the language had unlifted types, I might have used those instead).
Beyond that, I don't care exactly when it was evaluated; it might be
long before, thanks to propagation of strictness information.

seq has a clear denotational semantics.  One can still do equational
reasoning with it, though there will be side conditions about whether
something is _|_ or not.  The downside is that the eta rules get such
side conditions, and polymorphic seq greatly weakens parametricity.

Apart from that, the only thing wrong with seq is its name.