Strict tuples

[Taral]

On 3/18/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty <chak at cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> Of course, the caller could invoke addmul using a bang patterns, as in
>
>   let ( !s, !p ) = addmul x y
>   in ...
>
> but that's quite different to statically knowing (from the type) that
> the two results of addmul will already be evaluated.  The latter leaves
> room for more optimisations.

I looked back at this, and I'm not sure that this statement (which
appears to be the core reason for considering this) is true at all. I
don't see that more optimization follows from the availability of
information regarding the strictness of a function result's
subcomponents.

--
Taral <taralx at gmail.com>
"You can't prove anything."
    -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem