gluing
those together.
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
of GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving instances, so long
as we could write them out for ourselves.
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.comwrote:
It compiles to
lift f d = f (d `cast
` (...)
which would reduce my overhead significantly.
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Louis Wasserman wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Mmmm, let's give a slightly different example:
foo :: Foo - Int
foo (Foo
directly casts the class dictionary. The
implication would be that that GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving gives more
efficient instances than you could *possibly* get if you wrote them by hand,
which is very sad.
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis
with associated types, so I can't do that.
How difficult would it be to identify and rewrite these, when they appear in
non-recursive lets? (I'm actually experimenting with implementing the
change myself, but I've never hacked GHC before, so we'll see how it
goes...)
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo
, which is one of my
biggest sources of angst!) Looking at ghc-core, my code appears to
*always* give
the exception Oops! Entered absent arg ww_s9eC{v} [lid]
predmain:Data.Algebra.Ring.Ring{tc r2tU} c{tv a8Os} [tv]
Is this typical? Where should I send this?
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo
binomial heap
implementation.
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
will priority queues. If I'm going to split off a
separate package for priority queues, it'll be because I've been convinced
that it ought to be separated from containers, period -- not just because
people think containers should be broken up, and this is a good place to
start. Meh.
Louis
send out those tests ASAP.
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
passes --
is in the code.haskell.org directory.)
Louis Wasserman
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Okay, let me ask the following question:
Would anybody besides me be heartbroken if priority queues *weren't* put
into containers, but were instead put into the Platform?
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:50 PM
-identical method signatures.
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tyson Whitehead twhiteh...@gmail.comwrote:
On March 16, 2010 09:29:06 Louis Wasserman wrote:
I'd like to request some more feedback
that we retain Foldable. The most important
reason is that we don't lose any invariants as a result of a fold, and the
second reason is that reexporting functions named foldr and foldl would
be awkward.
Making this change now.
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
http
the
optimized binomial heap. I'm not sure whether or not I uploaded that
benchmark, though. I'll do that at some point today, just to keep everyone
happy.
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis
___
Glasgow-haskell
for
heapsorting 25000 Ints:
Binomial: 0.000 3.240 2.180 4.000 8.001
PSQ:8.001 13.241 2.882 12.001 24.002
I'm really not okay with that kind of performance loss for added
functionality that not everyone needs.
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
http://profiles.google.com
I suspect the following might be faster:
data BinomForest2 a = Empty
| NonEmpty a [BinomTree2 a]
data BinomTree2 a = BinomTree2 a [BinomTree2 a]
This eliminates the Skip constructor, which contributes only to the
nested type guarantee.
Ehehehe. This is something I'm
'
utils/ghc-cabal/ghc-cabal.hs:357:27:
Not in scope: `programOverrideArgs'
make[1]: *** [utils/ghc-cabal/dist/build/tmp/ghc-cabal] Error 1
make: *** [all] Error 2
Halp!
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis
. That might even be fine, though I haven't
worked it out. For this particular example, though, (Foo a (F a)) is
equivalent to (F a ~ b, Foo a b).
This approach actually, I think, works out some coinductive issues, if we
apply this approach to issues besides type equality constraints.
Louis Wasserman
, but currently has no effect, and as a
result, I would expect that implementing this proposal wouldn't cause
problems in old programs and could be useful in new ones.
I think I'm making sense. Would anyone else care to chime in?
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:38
that currently
takes care of {-# UNPACK #-} pragmas, so I could -- for instance -- figure
out whether or not there's another reason that this idea isn't in place
already?
Louis Wasserman
wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
20 matches
Mail list logo
