[Haskell] BitSyntax for Haskell

Erlang's bit syntax[1] is a great for building and breaking up binary structures. I've knocked up something similar (although a little clumsy) for Haskell: http://www.imperialviolet.org/binary/bitsyntax/ http://www.imperialviolet.org/binary/bitsyntax/BitSyntax.hs I'm sure that this isn't the bes

Re[2]: [Haskell] Performance, Optimization and Code Generation

Hello roconnor, Saturday, September 23, 2006, 4:13:39 PM, you wrote: > Also, shouldn't the calls to shiftL32# and shiftRL32# be calls to > uncheckedShiftL32# and uncheckedShiftR32# since i'# and (32# -# i'#) are > provably safe? yes. below is the code used in my lib: #ifdef __GLASGOW_HASKELL__

[Haskell] ANNOUNCE: Dr Haskell 0.1

Hi Haskell, This is the first release of Dr Haskell, a tool to help suggest improvements to your code. GETTING DR HASKELL See http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~ndm/projects/drhaskell.php for details on how to download and install the program. There are prebuilt Windows binaries. This project requ

[Haskell] Re: [Hugs-users] ANNOUNCE: new release of Hugs

Am Donnerstag, 21. September 2006 18:07 schrieb Ross Paterson: > We are pleased to announce a new minor release of Hugs, [...] The "Latest News" on http://cvs.haskell.org/Hugs/pages/latest.htm don't mention the new release yet. Is this intentional? Cheers, S.

Re: [Haskell] Performance, Optimization and Code Generation

according to , GHC's rotate is implemented as (W32# x#) `rotate` (I# i#) | i'# ==# 0# = W32# x# | otherwise = W32# ((x# `shiftL32#` i'#) `or32#` (x# `shiftRL32#` (32# -# i'#))) where

[Haskell] Performance, Optimization and Code Generation

This starts out with my being interested in darcs <-> git related issues. Since git uses sha1 I wanted to have the ability to calculate sha1 in an application where I was intending to use darcs as a back-end. The performance gap is > * 30 between Haskell and  sha1sum.  That seemed rather stee

[Haskell] MR details (was: Implicit type of numeric constants)

Hello, I don't take my advice to go to haskell-cafe :-) The discussion continued outside the mailing list, and now I have two questions myself: 1. Why do the rules of the monomorphism restriction explicitly mention *simple* pattern bindings? Where is the difference, especially as there is