> I bet it's massive types. Translate the program into system F and see.
> (I remember this came up when looking at Okasaki's sequences of code
> combinators.)
Ok. I didn't use System Fomega (no compiler at hand) but GHC's
data types with locally quantified fields. Here is the original
program (I
Ralf Hinze
| Cc: GHC bugs
| Subject: RE: GHC *is* resource hungry
|
| As far as I know, Hugs doesn't hash-cons types, yet it manages to
| typecheck these pathalogical examples in reasonable time/space. I
| vaguely recall there being a specific modification to Hugs's
typechecker
| to hand
> As far as I know, Hugs doesn't hash-cons types, yet it manages to
> typecheck these pathalogical examples in reasonable time/space. I
> vaguely recall there being a specific modification to Hugs's typechecker
> to handle this, but I can't remember what it was.
Ahem, what do you mean by `pathalo
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Simon Peyton-Jones
> Sent: 28 May 2003 15:57
> To: Ralf Hinze
> Cc: GHC bugs
> Subject: RE: GHC *is* resource hungry
>
> I bet it's massive types. Translate the pr
| > GHC doesn't try to hash-cons types, because it usually doesn't
matter,
| > but I bet it does here.
|
| Would this be a major rewrite? [As an aside, a similiar problem showed
up
| when generating conversion functions for generic representation
types.]
I really don't know. Hash-consing is simp
> I bet it's massive types. Translate the program into system F and see.
> (I remember this came up when looking at Okasaki's sequences of code
> combinators.)
Your bet is most likely the correct one (yes, I peeked at Chris' HW2002 paper).
> GHC doesn't try to hash-cons types, because it usually
I bet it's massive types. Translate the program into system F and see.
(I remember this came up when looking at Okasaki's sequences of code
combinators.)
GHC doesn't try to hash-cons types, because it usually doesn't matter,
but I bet it does here.
S
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL
