On Wed, 28 May 2008, Ketil Malde wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
well, i don't understand difference between your idea and lazybs
implementation
HT said earlier that:
This would still allow the nice tricks for recursive Fibonacci
sequence definition.
Which I guess
On Thu, 29 May 2008, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Andrew,
Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 10:37:47 PM, you wrote:
looks like lazy.bytestring generalized to any a
That sounds like a darn useful thing to have...
well, support on only Word8 as base type isn't some fundamental limit,
just creators
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.
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
Hello Henning,
Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 12:22:54 PM, you wrote:
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.
As far as I know, ByteString.Lazy is chunky, that is laziness occurs only
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
well, i don't understand difference between your idea and lazybs
implementation
HT said earlier that:
This would still allow the nice tricks for recursive Fibonacci
sequence definition.
Which I guess refers to something like:
fibs = 1 : 1 :
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Duncan Coutts wrote:
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
Ketil Malde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You've lost me at least.
...but perhaps I can find my way back on my own?
Today, you can choose between Array, with lazy elements, or UArray,
with strict elements.
Lazy arrays have the elements defined in advance, strict ones have
them calculated in
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
Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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. [...]
looks like
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Ketil Malde wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
well, i don't understand difference between your idea and lazybs
implementation
HT said earlier that:
This would still allow the nice tricks for recursive Fibonacci
sequence definition.
Which I guess
lemming:
I wonder whether the following idea has been investigated or implemented
somewhere:
We could simulate a list with strict elements, i.e.
data StrictList a = Elem !a (StrictList a) | End
I've used the above structure itself, as a useful alternative to fully
lazy lists.
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Ketil Malde wrote:
Ketil Malde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You've lost me at least.
...but perhaps I can find my way back on my own?
Today, you can choose between Array, with lazy elements, or UArray,
with strict elements.
... and ByteStrings, where in principle the
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Don Stewart wrote:
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
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Henning,
looks like lazy.bytestring generalized to any a
That sounds like a darn useful thing to have...
[OTOH, currently unboxed arrays are available only for a select few
types, so good luck implementing this in a clean way!]
bulat.ziganshin:
Hello Andrew,
Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 10:37:47 PM, you wrote:
looks like lazy.bytestring generalized to any a
That sounds like a darn useful thing to have...
well, support on only Word8 as base type isn't some fundamental limit,
just creators of bytestring package was
Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://code.haskell.org/~dons/uvector
http://code.haskell.org/~dons/code/uvector
(I presume? The other URL gives a 404)
-k
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
___
I wonder whether the following idea has been investigated or implemented
somewhere:
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
