On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 05:49:15AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:59:25PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > p.s.: Strangely, Tomasz's reply again appears as being sent from my address
> > in the archive. Anyone knows why?
>
> Maybe mailman is somehow confused by th
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:59:25PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> p.s.: Strangely, Tomasz's reply again appears as being sent from my address
> in the archive. Anyone knows why?
Maybe mailman is somehow confused by this weird address:
"xoxy >>= haskell-cafe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
?
Best reg
- Original Message -
From: "Duncan Coutts - [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 9:09 PM
> On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 11:29 -0800, Jeremy Shaw wrote:
>
> The only case it is a benefit is when it accidentally happens and it's just
> a bonus, but in that case you never needed the
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> For example it's not currently convenient to find out the strictness
> that ghc infers for functions (though it is possible). Ideally an IDE or
> something would be able to present this sort of information along with
> the inferred type etc.
>
It'd be n
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 11:29 -0800, Jeremy Shaw wrote:
> > Why should inferring uniqueness be all that fragile? A uniqueness checker
> > can be
> > rather robust, as is demonstrated by the Clean one.
>
> Fragile could refer to the fact that a relatively small looking change
> to your code could
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:29:44AM -0800, Jeremy Shaw wrote:
> > Why should inferring uniqueness be all that fragile? A uniqueness checker
> > can be
> > rather robust, as is demonstrated by the Clean one.
>
> Fragile could refer to the fact that a relatively small looking change
> to your code
> > > Clean-like _explicit_ uniqueness typing is not what I'm asking for in
> > > Haskell.
> >
> > So you want implicit, automatically inferred uniqueness typing -
> > something that would be even more fragile and sensitive then current
> > Haskell's space problems arising from laziness? ;-)
> >
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 06:38:53PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tomasz Zielonka - [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:53 PM
>
> > > Clean-like _explicit_ uniqueness typing is not what I'm asking for in
> > > Haskell.
> >
> > So you
Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2005 18:38 schrieb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> [...]
> p.p.s.: I've sent this mail a second time because the first one got lost
> somehow - hopefully, it doesn't show up again.
Concerning me, your first mail wasn't lost. I got this mail two times.
Best wishes,
Wolfgang
Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2005 13:08 schrieb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> [...]
> A uniqueness checker can be rather robust, as is demonstrated by the Clean
> one, so all we'd have to worry about is how to find a good set of supposedly
> unique node candidates to suggest to the checker. (It certainly wo
- Original Message -
From: "Tomasz Zielonka - [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:53 PM
> >
> > Clean-like _explicit_ uniqueness typing is not what I'm asking for in
> > Haskell.
>
> So you want implicit, automatically inferred uniqueness typing -
> something that wou
- Original Message -
From: "Tomasz Zielonka - [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:53 PM
> >
> > Clean-like _explicit_ uniqueness typing is not what I'm asking for in
> > Haskell.
>
> So you want implicit, automatically inferred uniqueness typing -
> something that wo
- Original Message -
From: "Wolfgang Jeltsch - [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 6:13 PM
>
> I thought that the original question was about using some kind of uniqueness
> type system at an intermediate stage during compiling. Haskell would still
> have no uniquenes
Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2005 04:00 schrieb Jan-Willem Maessen:
> On Dec 7, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2005 14:21 schrieb Jan-Willem Maessen:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> The principle obstacles are the same as for any reference counting
> >> scheme: It impose
- Original Message -
From: "Sebastian Sylvan - [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:36 PM
>
> > Maybe you'd be interested in Hacle?
> >
> > http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~mfn/hacle/
Yep, I am. :) I've discovered it a while ago.
> >
> > " The aim was to develop a t
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 05:59:55PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I liked the concept of UT in Clean, but I haven't ever got comfortable
> > with using it to write real programs.
>
> Clean-like _explicit_ uniqueness typing is not what I'm asking for in Haskell.
So you want implicit, automati
On 12/7/05, Greg Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It might be possible to get extremely fast code out of ghc, but as an
> > overall
> > impression, it's not easy, whilst Clean sort of gives it for granted (well,
> > struggeling with wrongly assigned uniqueness att
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It might be possible to get extremely fast code out of ghc, but as an overall
> impression, it's not easy, whilst Clean sort of gives it for granted (well,
> struggeling with wrongly assigned uniqueness attributes aside).
> programs generated by ghc generally need mult
- Original Message -
From: "Tomasz Zielonka - [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 9:18 PM
>
> We can get similar performance from Haskell using various features of
> GHC (unboxed arrays, mutable arrays, ST monad, soon SMP, etc) and one
> can argue that they are even nice
- Original Message -
From: "Jan-Willem Maessen - [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 2:21 PM
>
> Wearing my "Fortress language designer" hat, we've given serious
> thought to these techniques for very large arrays. Copying such
> structures is terribly expensive, or even
Am Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2005 14:21 schrieb Jan-Willem Maessen:
> [...]
> The principle obstacles are the same as for any reference counting scheme:
> It imposes more run-time overhead than GC does, unless the data structures
> involved are large.
Why? I think the point with uniqueness typing/an
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 08:21:42AM -0500, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
> Yes, this could be done. The principle obstacles are the same as for any
> reference counting scheme: It imposes more run-time overhead than GC
> does, unless the data structures involved are large. Let me repeat that:
> accura
On Dec 6, 2005, at 9:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
being occupied with learning both languages, I'm getting curious if
Haskell couldn't achieve most of the performance gains
resulting from uniqueness typing in Clean by *automatically*
determining the reference count of arguments
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 03:17:21PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> being occupied with learning both languages, I'm getting curious if
> Haskell couldn't achieve most of the performance gains resulting from
> uniqueness typing in Clean by *automatically* determining the
> reference count of argum
Hi all,
being occupied with learning both languages, I'm getting curious if Haskell
couldn't achieve most of the performance gains
resulting from uniqueness typing in Clean by *automatically* determining the
reference count of arguments wherever
possible and subsequently allowing them to be phys
25 matches
Mail list logo
