+Note [Specialising for constant parameters]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+This one is about specialising on a *constant* (but not necessarily
+constructor) argument
+
+ foo :: Int -> (Int -> Int) -> Int
+ foo 0 f = 0
+ foo m f = foo (f m) (+1)
+
+It produces
+
+ lvl_rmV :: GHC.Base.Int -> GHC.Base.Int
+ lvl_rmV =
+ \ (ds_dlk :: GHC.Base.Int) ->
+ case ds_dlk of wild_alH { GHC.Base.I# x_alG ->
+ GHC.Base.I# (GHC.Prim.+# x_alG 1)
+
+ T.$wfoo :: GHC.Prim.Int# -> (GHC.Base.Int -> GHC.Base.Int) ->
+ GHC.Prim.Int#
+ T.$wfoo =
+ \ (ww_sme :: GHC.Prim.Int#) (w_smg :: GHC.Base.Int -> GHC.Base.Int) ->
+ case ww_sme of ds_Xlw {
+ __DEFAULT ->
+ case w_smg (GHC.Base.I# ds_Xlw) of w1_Xmo { GHC.Base.I# ww1_Xmz ->
+ T.$wfoo ww1_Xmz lvl_rmV
+ };
+ 0 -> 0
+ }
+
+The recursive call has lvl_rmV as its argument, so we could create a specialised copy
+with that argument baked in; that is, not passed at all. Now it can perhaps be inlined.
+
+When is this worth it? Call the constant 'lvl'
+- If 'lvl' has an unfolding that is a constructor, see if the corresponding
+ parameter is scrutinised anywhere in the body.
+
+- If 'lvl' has an unfolding that is a inlinable function, see if the corresponding
+ parameter is applied (...to enough arguments...?)
+
+ Also do this is if the function has RULES?
+
+Also
+
+Note [Specialising for lambda parameters]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ foo :: Int -> (Int -> Int) -> Int
+ foo 0 f = 0
+ foo m f = foo (f m) (\n -> n-m)
+
+This is subtly different from the previous one in that we get an
+explicit lambda as the argument:
+
+ T.$wfoo :: GHC.Prim.Int# -> (GHC.Base.Int -> GHC.Base.Int) ->
+ GHC.Prim.Int#
+ T.$wfoo =
+ \ (ww_sm8 :: GHC.Prim.Int#) (w_sma :: GHC.Base.Int -> GHC.Base.Int) ->
+ case ww_sm8 of ds_Xlr {
+ __DEFAULT ->
+ case w_sma (GHC.Base.I# ds_Xlr) of w1_Xmf { GHC.Base.I# ww1_Xmq ->
+ T.$wfoo
+ ww1_Xmq
+ (\ (n_ad3 :: GHC.Base.Int) ->
+ case n_ad3 of wild_alB { GHC.Base.I# x_alA ->
+ GHC.Base.I# (GHC.Prim.-# x_alA ds_Xlr)
+ })
+ };
+ 0 -> 0
+ }
+
+I wonder if SpecConstr couldn't be extended to handle this? After all,
+lambda is a sort of constructor for functions and perhaps it already
+has most of the necessary machinery?
+
+Furthermore, there's an immediate win, because you don't need to allocate the lamda
+at the call site; and if perchance it's called in the recursive call, then you
+may avoid allocating it altogether. Just like for constructors.
+
+Looks cool, but probably rare...but it might be easy to implement.
+
+
+Note [SpecConstr for casts]
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Consider
+ data family T a :: *
+ data instance T Int = T Int
+
+ foo n = ...
+ where
+ go (T 0) = 0
+ go (T n) = go (T (n-1))
+
+The recursive call ends up looking like
+ go (T (I# ...) `cast` g)
+So we want to spot the construtor application inside the cast.
+That's why we have the Cast case in argToPat
+
+