Yes, I agree at inclusion in base. I opted for this solution, as it allows
me to test it in anger at my daily work at Erudify. If we're going to add
more strict modules to base, then I'd do it in a two step process.
1. Include strict versions of core types, i.e., the modules from
strict-base-types
Dear fellow haskellers,
the strict-base-types package makes it easy to get rid of the unnecessary
laziness (and the resulting space leaks) in your applications; i.e., no more
data AppState = AppState
{ _field :: !(Maybe T.Text)
, ...
}
as the alternative
import qualified Data.Maybe.
Hi Omari,
I'm currently using Neil Mitchell's cmdargs package [1]. How does your
package compare to that?
best regards,
Simon
[1] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/cmdargs-0.9.2
2012/1/29 Omari Norman :
> multiarg is a parser combinator library to build command line parsers.
> With it you can
d using CPS. Hence, we can now build a full
replacement of the encoding part of the 'binary' package based on
blaze-builder.
- The `Write` abstraction has been restructured to allow for a more
efficient Monoid instance and better insulation of user code from
abstrac
Hi Antoine,
Can the same technique be ported over to the binary package, or is it
> somehow interface incompatible?
>
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the same technique.
If you mean using blaze-builder instead of Data.Binary.Builder as the Monoid
that the Put writer monad in the Binary typ
://lambda-view.blogspot.com/2010/11/blaze-builder-library-faster.html
best regards,
Simon Meier
___
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
