On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, John Lato wrote:
John A. De Goes schrieb:
Elsewhere, laziness can be a real boon, so I don't understand your
question, "Why have laziness in Haskell at all?"
As I have written, many libaries process their data lazily (or could be
changed to do so without altering their interface) but their interface
can forbid application to data that is fetched from the outside world.
Say you are used to 'map', 'filter', 'foldr' - you cannot use them on
data fetched by the iteratee/enumerator approach.
Thank you for replying to this; it's good to see what features people
would like to make iteratees more useful.
Where did you get the idea that you can't use 'map'?
What I meant was, that you cannot just use the functions you are used from
Data.List. You need functions adapted to Iteratee. This also implies that
all libraries written in terms of Data.List functions cannot be used as
they are. Maybe it's a good time to review those libraries, whether they
need lists at all, or whether they would also work with functionality that
can be provided by Iteratees. The question, whether libraries should be
bound to lists and Strings did already arise with ByteStrings. So
Iteratees may be just one more reason to generalize the libraries.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
