Re[4]: subtle inlining problem

Hello Simon, Thursday, November 9, 2006, 11:29:18 AM, you wrote: > I meant that I'm not 100% sure that an INLINE pragma in an > *instance declaration* will cause the method to be inlined. I think > it works, but it'd be worth checking. you may be sure - without this my deeply-classified Streams

RE: Re[2]: subtle inlining problem

| > The same thing should work in an instance decl, for the same | > reason, but I have not tried it recently. And, assuming it does | > work, it ought to be documented. If you check, and send me draft | > words, I'll add them to the user manual | | ok, but i don't undertsand what you mean by "i

Re[2]: subtle inlining problem

Hello Simon, Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 8:41:51 PM, you wrote: >> {-# INLINE getInteger #-} >> getInteger = ... -- large definition that will be not inlined >> -- without pragma >> >> get = getInteger > Here, getInteger will be inlined in the RHS of get, but GHC doesn't > see a

RE: subtle inlining problem

| > {-# INLINE getInteger #-} | > getInteger = ... -- large definition that will be not inlined | > -- without pragma | > | > instance Binary Integer where | > get = getInteger A simpler version is > {-# INLINE getInteger #-} > getInteger = ... -- large definition that will be

subtle inlining problem

Hello glasgow-haskell-users, in the following definitions: > {-# INLINE getInteger #-} > getInteger = ... -- large definition that will be not inlined > -- without pragma > > instance Binary Integer where > get = getInteger is Integer.get will be inlined or not? -- Best rega