* Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-26 12:37:53+0000] > Somebody asked me, so now I'm asking you... > > In Haskell, you can make "unboxed" arrays of certain value types. These > are typically more efficient in space, and probably time too, and also > make the array strict in its values. However, you can only do this magic > trick for certain types - not for *all* types. > > Why is that? Is it because nobody has done anything about it yet? Is it > because it's thought to be "not necessary" in some way? Is there some > theoretical problem? Has somebody got a better idea? > > I did think it was along the lines of "oh, well, if you want to unbox a > type of your own, you just need to write your own instance". The thing > that makes me suspicious of this logic is the absense of an instance for > tuples. Surely this would be trivial to write, and yet it's not present. > If we had instances for a couple of sizes of tuples, it would surely be > quite easy to write your own custom instances that just sit on top of > this and tuple/untuple your custom values... > > Any insights here?
Could Data Parallel Haskell[1] be useful for you? It was designed for parallel computation, but it includes unboxed arrays, nice list-like syntax and array comprehensions. 1. http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC/Data_Parallel_Haskell -- Roman I. Cheplyaka :: http://ro-che.info/ ...being in love is totally punk rock...
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
