On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Captain Freako wrote:
> One more question on the `runAuto' code, John:
>
> If I understand the code correctly, `f' is an arrow. Yet, we're using
> it on the right side of `=' in a simple assignment. How are we getting
> away with that?
>
> Thanks,
> -db
>
> liftAu'
One more question on the `runAuto' code, John:
If I understand the code correctly, `f' is an arrow. Yet, we're using
it on the right side of `=' in a simple assignment. How are we getting
away with that?
Thanks,
-db
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM, John Lask wrote:
> On 20/10/2011 5:11 AM, Cap
Thanks, John. I think I understand what you've done, below.
However, it's made me realize that I don't understand something about
your original code:
When the `liftAu' function was only returning `y', how were we able to
get `(y, a)' out of it, when we called it from `runAuto'?
Thanks,
-db
On W
Welcome to issue 204 of the HWN, a newsletter covering developments in
the Haskell community. This release covers the week of October 9 to 15,
2011.
You can find the HTML version of this issue at:
http://contemplatecode.blogspot.com/2011/10/haskell-weekly-news-issue-204.html
New and Updated Proje
Greg,
> The code looks ok to me -- you've deepseq'ed the list, and forcing it
> to whnf should force the deepseq. Also, criterion runs your benchmark
> many times, if your code was measuring the RNG time it would only
> happen once. This would show up in the criterion output as an
> unusually larg
On 20/10/2011 5:11 AM, Captain Freako wrote:
for your use case then, the StateArrow seems more appropriate as it
provides you with the final state. Ofcourse the Automaton arrow could
also be used:
> liftAu' f s0 = proc x -> do
>rec (y,s') <- arr f -< (x,s)
>s <- delay s0 -< s'
>
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:21:48 +0200, Gregory Collins
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Johan Tibell
wrote:
It does. You need to use evaluate to have ensure actually be evaluated.
I'm almost certain you're wrong about this. The bang pattern on the
return from ensure (!r1 <- ensure
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Gregory Collins
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Johan Tibell
> wrote:
> >
> > It does. You need to use evaluate to have ensure actually be evaluated.
> >
>
> I'm almost certain you're wrong about this. The bang pattern on the
> return from ensure (!r1 <
On 19 October 2011 17:03, Johan Tibell wrote:
> Have a look at:
>
> https://github.com/tibbe/unordered-containers/blob/master/benchmarks/Benchmarks.hs
I see you use the (evaluate . rnf) composition.
I also used it in:
https://github.com/basvandijk/vector-bytestring/blob/master/bench.hs#L118
an
Michael Snoyman writes:
> sense to try and pursue something like what you're suggesting, but I
> think the default Show (Vector Word8) should be the one most useful,
> most of the time, and I think the general consensus seems to be the
> current ByteString instance fits that role.
Hm. I think i
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
>
> It does. You need to use evaluate to have ensure actually be evaluated.
>
I'm almost certain you're wrong about this. The bang pattern on the
return from ensure (!r1 <- ensure $ ...) forces r1 to WHNF, which goes
through deepseq, and thus t
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
> On 19 October 2011 22:09, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
>>
>> So it seems that (1) people have very different requirements and (2) the
>> Show instance only really matters for debugging in ghci. Here is a
>> thought. What if ghci allowed Show instances to be overridden
>
John Lask wrote:
>This is literate code. It expounds on your initial question and provides
>two solutions based either on the StateArrow or Automaton
>(Remainder omitted.)
John,
Thanks so much for your help!
I'm going to study your example code and try to understand how the
Automaton implici
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Tetley
wrote:
> On 19 October 2011 15:59, AM wrote:
>
>> Note that other programming languages have had to solve this exact problem
>> and they usually end up with multiple functions- one for debugging, one for
>> serialization, one for displaying how th
On 19 October 2011 15:59, AM wrote:
> Note that other programming languages have had to solve this exact problem
> and they usually end up with multiple functions- one for debugging, one for
> serialization, one for displaying how the object was constructed.
>
As per Haskell with Show (represe
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 08:18:17PM +0200, Nicu Ionita wrote:
> Am 18.10.2011 18:53, schrieb Stephen Tetley:
> >Haskell has no support for reflection whatsoever.
> >
> >It can support compile time meta-programming with Template Haskell.
> >
> >Reflection itself might be antagonistic to functional pr
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Kazu Yamamoto wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm measuring performance of the insertion operation of red-black
> trees. For input, three kinds of [Int] are prepared: the increasing
> the order, decreasing order, and random.
>
> The random case is 4 or 5 times slower tha
On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
> On 19 October 2011 22:09, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
>>
>> So it seems that (1) people have very different requirements and (2) the
>> Show instance only really matters for debugging in ghci. Here is a
>> thought. What if ghci allowed S
On 17 October 2011 11:56, Luis Cabellos wrote:
>> My own library is available at https://github.com/HIPERFIT/hopencl and
>> will be released on hackage very soon (next week probably). Please
>> take a look at it. It is currently tested on x86_64 Linux with both
>> the AMD x86/x86_64 bindings and N
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy
wrote:
>
> So it seems that (1) people have very different requirements and (2) the
> Show instance only really matters for debugging in ghci. Here is a
> thought. What if ghci allowed Show instances to be overridden dynamically?
> So you could
On 19 October 2011 22:09, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
>
> So it seems that (1) people have very different requirements and (2) the
> Show instance only really matters for debugging in ghci. Here is a
> thought. What if ghci allowed Show instances to be overridden dynamically?
> So you could put your
Conrad Parker wrote:
> On 15 October 2011 23:18, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
> wrote:
>> On 16 October 2011 01:15, Bas van Dijk wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree that you shouldn't use ByteStrings or Vectors of Word8s for
>>> Unicode strings. However I can imagine that for quick sessions in ghci
>>> it can be qui
On 19 October 2011 19:21, Gregory Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Kazu Yamamoto wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm measuring performance of the insertion operation of red-black
>> trees. For input, three kinds of [Int] are prepared: the increasing
>> the order, decreasing order, and ra
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Kazu Yamamoto wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm measuring performance of the insertion operation of red-black
> trees. For input, three kinds of [Int] are prepared: the increasing
> the order, decreasing order, and random.
>
> The random case is 4 or 5 times slower than the
Hello,
I'm measuring performance of the insertion operation of red-black
trees. For input, three kinds of [Int] are prepared: the increasing
the order, decreasing order, and random.
The random case is 4 or 5 times slower than the others. I'm afraid
that my program also measured the cost of random
25 matches
Mail list logo
