Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Bill Baxter wrote:
But I'm just guessing there will be some penalty for doing everything
lazily in the case where you know you want a full array. More data is
needed on that I think.
But even assuming it's is a free lunch, I'd want a better way make an
array than putting .eager on everything. First off, that's not even
remotely a verb (like .eval() or .exec()), nor is it a noun that
clearly expresses the type it will become (ala array() or toArray()).
I believe (without having measured... which means that I am essentially
lying) that we can safely assume the lunch will be free or low cost. The
copying of the underlying range should be cheap except for the shortest
ranges.
Could it get in the way of parallelizing map?
Dunno. According to SPJ, automatically parallelizing map was a failed
experiment in Haskell. Explicit parallelizing a la pmap seems to be the
way to go.
Andrei
