[Haskell] semantice of seq

[roconnor at theorem.ca]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Duncan Coutts wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 09:44 -0400, roconnor at theorem.ca wrote:
>> Would the problematic semantics of seq be resolved if seq did nothing on
>> function types?  That is to say
>>
>> seq (\x -> undefined `asTypeOf` x) y reduced to y
>>
>> and
>>
>> seq (undefined `asTypeOf` id) y also reduced to y
>
> I don't think so. You'd also have to avoid polymorphic types since they
> can be used at function types. Basically you'd have to bring back the
> Seq class. The rationale for removing the class and making seq
> polymorphic is mentioned in the history of Haskell draft paper that was
> recently advertised.

I don't understand.  At execution time, all the polymoric variables are 
gon, so we know the type of the parameter to seq.

-- 
Russell O'Connor                                      <http://r6.ca/>
``All talk about `theft,''' the general counsel of the American Graphophone
Company wrote, ``is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in
ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as defined by statute.''