On Friday 26 August 2011, 21:30:02, Andrew Coppin wrote: > You wouldn't want to know how many bits you need to store on disk to > reliably recreate the value? Or how many bits of randomness you need to > compute a value less than or equal to this one? > > I suppose I could use a binary logarithm. I'm just concerned that it > would be rather slow. After all, I'm not interested in the exact > logarithm (which is fractional), just the number of bits (which is a > small integer)...
As of GHC-7.2, there's GHC.Integer.Logarithms in both, integer-gmp and integer-simple, providing integerLog2# :: Integer -> Int# (integer-* lives before base, so there's no Int yet) which exploits the representation of Integers and should be fast enough [at least for integer-gmp, where it's bounded time for normally represented values, the representation of Integers in integer-simple forces it to be O(log n)]. Caution: integerLog2# expects its argument to be positive, havoc might ensue if it isn't. GHC.Float exports integerLogBase :: Integer -> Integer -> Int also before 7.2, now it calls the above if the base is 2, so should have decent performance. (It requires that the base is > 1 and the second argument positive, of course.) _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
