RE: inlining higher-order-functions?
| My example is complicated, so let me present a simpler analogy.
| Suppose I defined
|
| compose :: (b - c) - (a - b) - (a - c)
| compose f g = \x - f (g x)
|
| I can easily persuade GHC to inline 'compose'.
| But when 'compose' is applied to known arguments, I wish
| f and g to be inlined in the body of 'compose'.
| Is there a pragma that will do the trick?
| (I attempted to put an INLINE pragma in a where clause,
| but GHC was not amused.)
You can put inline pragmas on f and g, thus
frob = ...
{-# INLINE frob #-}
burk = ...
{-# INLINE burk #-}
wibble = compose from burk
Now compose will be inlined (assuming it too has an INLINE pragma), and then
frob, burk.
Simon
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: inlining higher-order-functions?
Hello Norman, Friday, December 22, 2006, 8:23:57 AM, you wrote: compose :: (b - c) - (a - b) - (a - c) compose f g = \x - f (g x) ghc 6.6 added 'inline' function, see user docs. although only SPJ knows whether it can be used here: compose f g = inline (\x - f (g x)) -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
inlining higher-order-functions?
I've just discovered the {-# INLINE #-} pragma, but it's not
doing as much for me as I had hoped.
My example is complicated, so let me present a simpler analogy.
Suppose I defined
compose :: (b - c) - (a - b) - (a - c)
compose f g = \x - f (g x)
I can easily persuade GHC to inline 'compose'.
But when 'compose' is applied to known arguments, I wish
f and g to be inlined in the body of 'compose'.
Is there a pragma that will do the trick?
(I attempted to put an INLINE pragma in a where clause,
but GHC was not amused.)
Norman
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
