Tim Newsham wrote:
I have to write:
> do {
> x <- getSomeNum
> y <- anotherWayToGetANum
> return (x + y)
> }
even if the computation of x and y are completely independant of
each other.
I too have really missed a "parallel composition" operator to do
something like the above. Something like
do {
{ x <- getSomeNum || y <- anotherWayToGetANum}
return (x+y)
}
Actually, that syntax is rather hideous. What I would _really_ like to
write is
do {
(x,y) <- getSomeNum || anotherWayToGetANum
return (x+y)
}
I would be happy to tell Haskell explicitly that my computations are
independent (like the above), to expose parallelization opportunities.
Right now, not only can I NOT do that, I am forced to do the exact
opposite, and FORCE sequentiality.
Jacques
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
