Hi, thanks again for you input. Just one small remark:
Am Dienstag, den 01.07.2008, 14:52 -0700 schrieb Ryan Ingram: > On 7/1/08, Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am Montag, den 30.06.2008, 16:54 -0700 schrieb Ryan Ingram: > > > 1) unsafeInterleaveIO seems like a big hammer to use for this problem, > > > and there are a lot of gotchas involved that you may not have fully > > > thought out. But you do meet the main criteria (file being read is > > > assumed to be constant for a single run of the program). > > > > Any other gotcha? Anyways, is this really worse than the similary lazy > > readFile? Using that would not safe the call to open, but at least the > > reading and processing, in the same situations. > > Well, you're also (from your description) probably writing some > tracking information to an IORef of some sort. That can happen in the > middle of an otherwise pure computation, and it's difficult to know > exactly when it'll get triggered, due to laziness. You can probably > make it work :) Well, for the tracking information, I can do it purely, by copying code from StateT (or WriterT or ReaderT, I’m not sure :-)), and adapting slightly (e.g. the (>>) optimization). So besides unsafeInterleaveIO, no “bad, unpure stuff” should be necessary. I think I’ll put my ideas to code soon and post it here. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de ICQ#: 74513189 Jabber-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
