Dan,
Let me first apologize for this late reply.
Neil pointed you to
Jurriaan Hage and Stefan Holdermans. Heap recycling for lazy
languages. In John Hatcliff, Robert Glück, and Oege de Moor, editors,
_Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Partial Evaluation
and Semantics-Based Progr
Hi Andrew,
my probably dodgy reason for mentioning deforestation is that sharing
of intermediate values is a major stumbling block; code that uses data
linearly is possibly well suited for deforesting. See Frankau's SASL
for a language that deforests all lists simply by not letting you copy
them!
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Neil Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jurriaan Hage and Stefan Holdermans. Heap recycling for lazy
> languages. In John Hatcliff, Robert Glück, and Oege de Moor, editors,
> _Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Partial Evaluation
> and Semantics
Matthew Naylor wrote:
I wonder to what extent deforestation supersedes such optimisations.
This would be a good topic to raise with a Cleaner. The paper Neil
mentions looks like a nice alternative to uniqueness typing -- and it
appears that there will be a FitA talk about it, this Thursday.
> Uniqueness typing does not lead to in-place update. If a value is
> only used once, then there is no need to update it at all!
my understanding is that if a value is uniquely-typed then it is
statically known never to have more than one reference, thus it can be
modified in-place. Some poten
If Haskell had uniqueness typing, maybe the compiler could be made
to infer when values are used in a unique way. And maybe if the
compiler can detect data being used in a unique way, it could code
for in-place updates instead of copying, and thereby gain a
performance advantage.
Uniquene
Hi
You're not the first:
Jurriaan Hage and Stefan Holdermans. Heap recycling for lazy
languages. In John Hatcliff, Robert Glück, and Oege de Moor, editors,
_Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Partial Evaluation
and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation_, PEPM'08, San Francisco,
Calif
I just had a random idea, which I thought I'd share with you all.
I've heard about systems that do "copy on write". That is, all users
share a single copy of some structure, until somebody tries to write on
it. At that moment they get a personal copy to modify so they don't
upset everybody els
