On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 05:07 +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote: > As long as it is only about speeding up list processing, one might also > consider this as optimization problem. This could be handled without > adapting much List based code in applications to a generic sequence class. > That is, if I convert the result of a composition of list functions to a > lazy ByteString, I tell the compiler that I don't need full laziness and > the compiler can optimize, say > ByteString.fromList . List.func1 . List.func2 . List.build > to > ByteString.func1 . ByteString.func2 . ByteString.build > or even better > ByteString.fusedFunc1Func2Build > by some clever fusion framework. I think that a type class is easier to > justify if it unifies data structures that are more different than just > providing the same API with different efficiency.
This is orthogonal I think. This could be done with stream fusion without any common class. It requires that the types use stream fusion, then conversions between types (eg list/array) could be done with streams too. Duncan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
