On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 10:22 +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote: > On Wed, 28 May 2008, Bulat Ziganshin wrote: > > > Hello Henning, > > > > Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 9:51:28 AM, you wrote: > > > >> We could simulate a list with strict elements, i.e. > >> data StrictList a = Elem !a (StrictList a) | End > >> by an unboxed array with a cursor to the next element to be evaluated and > >> a function that generates the next element. Whenever an element with an > >> index beyond the cursor is requested, sufficiently many new elements are > >> written to the array and the cursor is advanced. This would still allow > >> the nice tricks for recursive Fibonacci sequence definition. This will > >> obviously save memory, but can we also expect that it is noticeably faster > >> than (StrictList a) ? > > > > looks like lazy.bytestring generalized to any a > > As far as I know, ByteString.Lazy is chunky, that is laziness occurs only > every 1000th byte or so. My suggestion aims at laziness at element level > but still more efficiency than a list.
How about a chunky lazy array? The problem with lazy bytestring is that each chunk is strict but if you made each chunk a H98 lazy array that might work nicely. Duncan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
