High-level technique for program options handling
alastair at reid-consulting-uk.ltd.uk
Tue Jan 20 14:56:52 EST 2004
> I'm not certain this applies, but it should be
> to force evaluation order with a technique similar to
> deepSeq. It might be cleaner than using IO.
I think in this case, I'd prefer to use the IO monad.
1) It keeps the sequencing very, very explicit
and not likely to be confused with a strictness
seq is more about performance than semantics
and, although all current Haskell compilers happen
to impose some sequencing on the evaluation order of
seq's arguments, future compilers could break that
property and still be semantically correct.
2) To use seq, I have to link the evaluation of the error
check to the evaluation of something else. It's not
quite clear what a good choice would be.
Point #1 is my main reason.
Alastair Reid www.haskell-consulting.com
More information about the Haskell