On 16-Mar-2000, Jan Brosius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder if someone could tell me more about the speed and size of compiled
> Haskell code.
...
> What about Haskell 98 versus (I anticipate) Haskell 2
There should be no significant differences as far as performance goes
between Haskell 98
On 17-Mar-2000, Tom Pledger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk writes:
> > Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:38:30 -0500, Chris Okasaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> >
> > > How are these two statements reconciled for recursive
> > > types such as
> > >
> > > newtype Foo = F Foo
>
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk writes:
> Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:38:30 -0500, Chris Okasaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>
> > How are these two statements reconciled for recursive
> > types such as
> >
> > newtype Foo = F Foo
>
> IMHO simply the only value of this type is bottom. [...]
Hi.
Sh
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:38:30 -0500, Chris Okasaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> How are these two statements reconciled for recursive
> types such as
>
> newtype Foo = F Foo
IMHO simply the only value of this type is bottom. I see no problem
here, neither does Hugs.
But GHC sees some problem and
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:00:35 +, Malcolm Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> GHC and HBC tend to produce code that is, broadly speaking,
> equally fast,
I experienced each of these compilers producing code about 3 times
faster than the other for a simple program.
--
__("
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Chris Okasaki wrote:
> newtype Foo = F Foo
Interesting loop hole you found there! Semantically it should be pretty
clear what this type means, just as the corresponding meaning on the
value level:
bottom = bottom
Foo is simply Void! (formal def. later)
Void has been in
At 2:38 pm -0500 16/3/00, Chris Okasaki wrote:
>The Haskell report says that in
>
> newtype T = C t
>
>T uses the same representation as t, and so coercions
>between the two can be implemented without execution
>time overhead. Furthermore, the report says that
>"unlike type synonyms, newtype may
"S.M.Kahrs" wrote:
>
> newtype Inftype b = A (b,Inftype)
> newtype Alist a = B (Either () (a,Alist a))
>
> infy = A (1,infy)
> onetwothree = B (Right(1,B(Right(2,B(Right(3,Left ()))
The following works with hugs.
> newtype Inftype b = A (b,Inftype b)
> newtype Alist a = B (Either () (a,Al
Adding to Chris' enquiry:
newtype Inftype b = A (b,Inftype)
newtype Alist a = B (Either () (a,Alist a))
...and we can (?) create values for them:
infy = A (1,infy)
onetwothree = B (Right(1,B(Right(2,B(Right(3,Left ()))
Stefan Kahrs
The Haskell report says that in
newtype T = C t
T uses the same representation as t, and so coercions
between the two can be implemented without execution
time overhead. Furthermore, the report says that
"unlike type synonyms, newtype may be used to define
recursive types."
How are these tw
> I wonder if someone could tell me more about the speed and size of
> compiled Haskell code. E.g. if one uses GHC to compile Haskell code
> into native code what speed performance can be expected versus a same
> program written in C (Hints about the nhc compiler are welcome).
Without going into
Jan Brosius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 16 Mar 2000
on speed and size of compiled Haskell code
> [..]
> E.g. if one uses GHC to compile Haskell code into native code what
> speed performance can be expected versus a same program written in
> C [..]
My experience with the program of gen
Jan's questions I don't think have a simple answer. My own belief is that
with sufficient development effort, one can always write a C program that is
more efficient than compiled Haskell code. However, the same thing also
applies to assembly language. The question, imho, is what are the typica
Does anyone know if this below situation is as bad in say SMLNJ or OCAML?
JanBrosius
- Original Message -
From: Jan Kort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: records in Haskell
> Simon Marlo
Hi,
I wonder if someone could tell me more about the speed and size of compiled
Haskell code.
E.g. if one uses GHC to compile Haskell code into native code what speed
performance can be expected versus a same program written in C (Hints about
the nhc compiler are welcome).
Is lazyness as good as
Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> Jan Kort writes:
>
> > It seem that any record, no matter how trivial, can't be much
> > longer than about 200 lines in Haskell. If a try to compile a
> > 300 line record containing just:
> > data X = X {
> > f1 :: String,
> > f2 :: String,
> > f3
Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:54:49 + (GMT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> I have heard that rpm version 3 now contains a way to specify
> build-time requirements (as distinct from install-time).
Yes, "BuildRequires:".
> Is it sufficient to describe the bootstrapping of self-compilin
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 10:27:56AM +, Peter Hancock wrote:
> After a _lot_ of ferreting round the net, I found db2dvi in
> stylesheets-0.10-2.i386.rpm. (Actually, it's not in
> docbook-3.1-5.i386.rpm, or psgml-1.2.1-1.i386.rpm, or
> sgml-tools-1.0.9-5.i386.rpm, or jade-1.2.1-9.i386.rpm, or ..
18 matches
Mail list logo
