John Meacham wrote:
> randomIO [...] Data.Unique [...] Atom.hs [...] caching
These are all great examples of cases where having per-process state makes sense.
But they can all be implemented with George Russell's library plus safe (pure) uses of unsafePerformIO. I hope his library or something like it will become a part of the standard distribution, and there's nothing wrong with having (pure) functions in the standard library which can't be implemented in Haskell, so I don't think these examples are sufficient on their own to justify a language extension. I'd still like to see an example of something that can be done with top-level <- but is inconvenient or impossible with George Russell's library.
>This is not a minor performance gain. in ginsu it dropped the memory >usage from > 100megs to 10megs. I would call that vital. when it used >100megs it was not a usable program.
Not that I think implementing Atom with a global hashtable is a bad idea, but I'm curious where in that range the memory usage would be if you defined
type Atom = PackedString toAtom = packString fromAtom = unpackPS
-- Ben
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
