On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 11:09:36PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Stefan O'Rear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > In general, GHC doesn't do "unboxing". Instead it has a simpler and > > more general approach, [...] > > I'm not convinced that the phrase "more general" is appropriate here. :-)
Not sure where that came from; my filters are usually better than that :) > > As far as actual heap usage goes, GHC creates single static values for > > all 0-argument constructors; so all Bool WHNFs are one of two addresses, > > one for True and one for False. > > And, of course, if it's a strict argument, then the values stored are > ALWAYS one of two possibilities. So as a matter of curiosity, would > there be any advantage at all for "unboxing" enumeration types? (Apart > from, I suppose, the possibility of using fewer than 32/64 bits to store > a flag.) That was actually described in the first paper on first-class unboxed types. The paper described a general mechanism for declaring user-defined unboxed types and procedures for unboxing any ADT. No idea if it was ever implemented, though. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
