be used at compile time
but the resulting code would be considerably faster. A deepSeq is
a gift to the compiler from the programmer.
Andy Gill
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
On Apr 7, 2006, at 3:59 AM, Rene de Visser wrote:
Hello,
As deepSeq has a non local effect, I think it requires a non-local
source transformation to implement it. One option would be for the
compiler to create a second deepSeq version of every function
definition.
e.g.
If the user def
On Apr 5, 2006, at 4:51 PM, John Meacham wrote:
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 10:34:09AM -0500, Spencer Janssen wrote:
How about an implementation that sets the deepSeq'd bit *after* each
field has been successfully deepSeq'd? deepSeq'ing a cyclic
structure
would behave just like an infinite str
would
make
it impossible to express deepSeq as a Haskell -> Haskell translation.
which is no good.
I am trying to understand this requirement. For the sake of what must
all primitives be expressible as a Haskell -> Haskell translation?
Andy Gill
___
On Apr 4, 2006, at 3:47 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 30 March 2006 23:12, Andy Gill wrote:
Implementation:
deepSeq (RAW_CONS ... fields ) =
if == True
then return /* hey, we've already deepSeq'd this */
else set to True.
deepSe
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
| Andy Gill
| Sent: 30 March 2006 23:12
| To: haskell-prime@haskell.org
| Cc: Laura McKinney
| Subject: deeqSeq proposal
|
| For the reasons talked about in previous posts, I'd like to
propose a
| deepSe
mping on space leaks.
(This proposal is orthogonal to the seq/Class discussion)
Andy Gill
Galois
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
On Mar 29, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Andy,
Thursday, March 30, 2006, 12:06:36 AM, you wrote:
Questions
- Does anyone have any better suggestions of how to fix this real
issue?
use mutable state, possible in the ST monad?
Thanks for you comments.
This would be fin
On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Robert Dockins wrote:
On Mar 29, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Andy Gill wrote:
John, et. al.,
I'd rather just use a polymorphic function, but would having some
sort of ... notation in class contexts help?
sort (Eq a,_) => [a] -> [a]
Which means that we ne
this real
issue?
- Could a polymorphic deepSeq allow for a implementation that does
not do repeated walked over pre-evaluated data?
Andy Gill
On Mar 24, 2006, at 5:40 AM, John Hughes wrote:
it seems that there is not yet a ticket about putting seq into a
type class (again).
In my opin
On Feb 17, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
Andy Gill wrote:
I'd like to see a way of enforcing return strictness, that is
where you
have confidence that what a function is returning is fully evaluated.
Imagine a function hstrict;
hstrict :: a -> a
Is this like deeps
el)
mechanism.
So the cost of calling hstrict would be amortized away to almost
nothing.
How much work would this be to add hstrict GHC? A extra bit in the
runtime representation? Could we use the speculation mechanism to do it?
Andy Gill
__
12 matches
Mail list logo
