On 1/4/06, Chris Kuklewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sebastian Sylvan wrote: > > On 1/4/06, Josh Goldfoot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Keep in mind that the shootout requires that the first 30 permutations > >>printed out by the Fannkuch benchmark to be exactly those given in the > >>"example." > > > > > > Well I'm one step closer to just not caring about the shootout anymore. > > > > The spec says *nothing* about the order of permutation. So the fact > > that they require them to be generated in a specific order (I'm sure > > it's just coincidence that it's the order you get in thet typical > > C-style permutation generator) is silly. > > > > What's the point of a language benchmark if all it tests is your > > language's ability to instruction-for-instruction implement a C > > algorithm? It's certainly possible to implement the exact same > > algorithm using Ptr Word8 etc, but what's the point? It's not > > idiomatic Haskell anymore and as such has little or no interest to me. > > > > This is silly! > > > > /S > > It is silly. But real work almost always involves having to heed > requirements that are annoying. And for a benchmark, it helps to keep > everyone using a similar algorithm. That said, this is the code Bertram > Felgenhauer posted to create the "right" permutation sequence: >
In this case the benchmark was about indexing small sequences of numbers, not about generating a specific sequence of permutations, so it would've been better, IMO, to just let people use whatever permutation algorithm they prefer. /S -- Sebastian Sylvan +46(0)736-818655 UIN: 44640862 _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe