On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Henning Thielemann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there can also be problems simply because the element type is no
longer fixed to Word8 but also not entirely free, but restricted to
Storable. E.g. you cannot simply replace
SV.fromList . List.map f
On 2008-02-20, Ross Paterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
conventions won't be usable in my ByteString code, for instance.
[...]
http://software.complete.org/listlike/static/doc/ListLike/Data-ListLike.html
As Henning pointed out, multiple parameter type classes are problematic
for core
On 2008-02-20, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I notice that Data.Foldable does some similar things but does not use
multi-parameter type classes. I seem to recall that I attempted to do
this in the same manner, but got tripped up somewhere. I can't
remember now exactly what the
Hi
full - Maybe (item, full)
Hrm, what exactly is the return data here? Is is the head and the
tail if the list has = 1 item, or Nothing otherwise? Or...?
Yes, its the projection onto another type:
[] = Nothing
(x:xs) = Just (x, xs)
What is the problem with MPTC in base?
John Goerzen wrote:
On 2008-02-20, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I notice that Data.Foldable does some similar things but does not use
multi-parameter type classes. I seem to recall that I attempted to do
this in the same manner, but got tripped up somewhere. I can't
remember now
Henning Thielemann lemming at henning-thielemann.de writes:
4) We are missing one final useful type: a Word32-based ByteString.
When working in the Unicode character set, a 32-bit character
can indeed be useful, and I could see situations in which the
performance benefit of a
On Feb 20, 2008 12:48 PM, Chad Scherrer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
StorableVector should fill this gap.
http://code.haskell.org/~sjanssen/storablevector/
Yes, it could, but
(1) it's way behind ByteString in terms of optimizations (== fusion)
(2) there's (as far as I know) not a
On Feb 20, 2008 10:57 AM, Antoine Latter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For anyone looking into it - the StorableVector fusion would have to
be quite different from the current ByteString fusion framework.
Maybe it would be enough to lay down a Stream fusion framework for
StorableVectors.
I must be
On 2008-02-20, Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not directly, no.
The point about Foldable, Functor, and Monad, is that they enforce the
connection between container and contents. If the contents is of type
a, the container is of type f a for a fixed type constructor 'f'.
This works
On Feb 20, 2008 12:59 PM, Chad Scherrer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 20, 2008 10:57 AM, Antoine Latter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For anyone looking into it - the StorableVector fusion would have to
be quite different from the current ByteString fusion framework.
Maybe it would be enough
Antoine Latter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From what I saw of Data.ByteString.Fusion, it relies on the assumption
that the elements of the output array are of the same size and
alignment as the elements of all of the arrays in the fused
intermediate steps. That way, all of the intermediate
John Goerzen wrote:
On 2008-02-20, Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not directly, no.
The point about Foldable, Functor, and Monad, is that they enforce the
connection between container and contents. If the contents is of type
a, the container is of type f a for a fixed type constructor
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:18:51PM +0100, Ben Franksen wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
On 2008-02-20, Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not directly, no.
The point about Foldable, Functor, and Monad, is that they enforce the
connection between container and contents. If the contents is
On 2008-02-20, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, if you mean using a dictionary to wrap just the
ByteString types (or other similar ones), I am currently thinking of
something along those lines. I'll post here if I come up with
something clever (or not).
Can't come up
G'day all.
Quoting Neil Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, its the projection onto another type:
[] = Nothing
(x:xs) = Just (x, xs)
Also known as msplit:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/New_monads/MonadSplit
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
___
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Chad Scherrer wrote:
On Feb 20, 2008 10:57 AM, Antoine Latter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For anyone looking into it - the StorableVector fusion would have to
be quite different from the current ByteString fusion framework.
Maybe it would be enough to lay down a Stream
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Neil Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, its the projection onto another type:
[] = Nothing
(x:xs) = Just (x, xs)
Also known as msplit:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/New_monads/MonadSplit
Almost. The
17 matches
Mail list logo
