On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 10:40:31AM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> What I would really like is a syntax to statically construct an array,
> without having to compute it from a list. I'm not sure that even
> Template Haskell can help here, since there is no normal form for it to
> translate to.
Th
CALL FOR PAPERS
Workshop on
Mathematically Structured Functional Programming
MSFP 2006
Kuressaare, Estonia, 2 July 2006
http://cs.ioc.ee/mpc-amast06/msfp/
Atila Romero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Perhaps I should propose a new syntactic construct for the language?
>
> And how about create a 'reduction rules' syntax? It maps a common
> construct that usually becomes slow code in predefined fast code. So
> the optimization done by compiler becomes m
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>Hmm, that only works if the data being stored in the table is of regular
>size? I need variable-length values. Using a two- or three-level
>encoding into strings would start to get /really/ unpleasant.
>
>And this is pretty ghc-specific stuff.
>
>Perhaps I should propose
> >> What I would really like is a syntax to statically construct an
> >> array, without having to compute it from a list. I'm not sure that
> >> even Template Haskell can help here, since there is no normal form
> >> for it to translate to.
>
> SM> Happy & Alex use the hack of encoding static ar
Hello Simon,
Thursday, February 23, 2006, 3:35:51 PM, you wrote:
>> What I would really like is a syntax to statically construct an array,
>> without having to compute it from a list. I'm not sure that even
>> Template Haskell can help here, since there is no normal form for it to
>> translate t
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Stefan Karrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
can ghc compile huge tables into efficient code if they are constant
at compile time?
I have a related but different question. If I have large, statically
defined tables of data e.g.
table = listArray (0,max) [ [1,2,3,4
Bjorn Lisper wrote:
Chris Kuklewicz:
Stefan Karrmann wrote:
Dear all,
can ghc compile huge tables into efficient code if they are constant at
compile time?
Two examples may clearify the question:
big1 :: UArray Int Char
big1 = array (0,1000) $! map (\i -> (i,toEnum i)) [0..1000]
big2 = su
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC:FAQ
(search for cse)
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bjorn Lisper
| Sent: 23 February 2006 10:28
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Cc: Haskell@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: [Haskell] Compilation of big, computed
Stefan Karrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> can ghc compile huge tables into efficient code if they are constant
> at compile time?
I have a related but different question. If I have large, statically
defined tables of data e.g.
table = listArray (0,max) [ [1,2,3,4]
Chris Kuklewicz:
>Stefan Karrmann wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> can ghc compile huge tables into efficient code if they are constant at
>> compile time?
>>
>> Two examples may clearify the question:
>>
>> big1 :: UArray Int Char
>> big1 = array (0,1000) $! map (\i -> (i,toEnum i)) [0..1000]
>>
>>
11 matches
Mail list logo