On 22 feb 2008, at 08.18, Jules Bean wrote:
Thomas Schilling wrote:
On 21 feb 2008, at 18.35, Johan Tibell wrote:
I switched from lazy bytestrings to a left fold in my networking
code
after reading what Oleg wrote about streams vs folds. No problems
with
handles, etc. anymore.
Do you
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Thomas Schilling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22 feb 2008, at 08.18, Jules Bean wrote:
You can't call a stream-abstraction utility using a left-fold-
enumerator without cheating (unsafeInterleave), because the stream-
abstraction is incompatible (and
Hi John!
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) Would it make sense to base as much code as possible in the Haskell
core areound ListLike definitions? Here I think of functions such
as lines and words, which make sense both on [Char] as well as
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 19:01 -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 5:13:34 pm Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 08:39 -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
* The iconv library works only on lazy ByteStrings, and does not
handle Strings or strict ByteStrings
There
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 10:06 +0100, Johan Tibell wrote:
Hi John!
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) Would it make sense to base as much code as possible in the Haskell
core areound ListLike definitions? Here I think of functions such
as
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 05:07 +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
As long as it is only about speeding up list processing, one might also
consider this as optimization problem. This could be handled without
adapting much List based code in applications to a generic sequence class.
That is, if I
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 05:07 +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
As long as it is only about speeding up list processing, one might also
consider this as optimization problem. This could be handled without
adapting much List based code in
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Duncan Coutts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 10:06 +0100, Johan Tibell wrote:
Hi John!
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) Would it make sense to base as much code as possible in the Haskell
On 21 feb 2008, at 15.26, Devin Mullins wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:21:50AM +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
So I'm claiming that the single impl with boundary conversion
gives us
the best of both worlds, no code bloat due to specialisation and
working
with whichever string type you like,
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Schilling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know of an example off-hand:
http://nominolo.blogspot.com/2007/05/networkhttp-bytestrings.html
(Of course, as I read that, I see that the lazy code is different from
the strict code, but I'll just ignore
On 21 feb 2008, at 18.35, Johan Tibell wrote:
I switched from lazy bytestrings to a left fold in my networking code
after reading what Oleg wrote about streams vs folds. No problems with
handles, etc. anymore.
Do you fold over chunks? Can you continue to use Parsek or other
utilities
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 13:37 +0100, Johan Tibell wrote:
I would be very happy if people didn't use the .Char8 versions of
ByteString except for being able to write byte literals using pack. (I
would be even happier if Haskell had byte literals.) If people start
using ByteString in their
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Thomas Schilling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21 feb 2008, at 18.35, Johan Tibell wrote:
I switched from lazy bytestrings to a left fold in my networking code
after reading what Oleg wrote about streams vs folds. No problems with
handles, etc.
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 13:34 +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
I suppose we mean the same. My question is: Why do we use ByteString
instead of [Word8] ? Entirely because of efficiency, right? So if we could
stick to List code and only convert to ByteString at the end and the
compiler all
Thomas Schilling wrote:
On 21 feb 2008, at 18.35, Johan Tibell wrote:
I switched from lazy bytestrings to a left fold in my networking code
after reading what Oleg wrote about streams vs folds. No problems with
handles, etc. anymore.
Do you fold over chunks? Can you continue to use Parsek
Now, to help solve this problem, I wrote ListLike[2], providing a
set of typeclasses that make list operations generic. I also provided
default instances of ListLike for:
ListLike Data.ByteString.ByteString Word8
ListLike Data.ByteString.Lazy.ByteString Word8
ListLike [a] a
(Integral i,
Hi folks,
Before I started using Haskell, I used OCaml for a spell. One of my
biggest annoyances with OCaml was that it had two list types: the
default list (strict), and a lazy list (known as a stream).
This led to all sorts of annoyances. Libraries were always written to
work with one list
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 08:39:13AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I am concerned that the same thing is happening in Haskell. We now
have three common list-like types: the regular list, strict
ByteString, and lazy ByteString.
This has created some annoying situations. For instance, a
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 08:39 -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
* The iconv library works only on lazy ByteStrings, and does not
handle Strings or strict ByteStrings
There is a very good reason for this. The right solution in this
particular example is not to overload every internal string
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 5:13:34 pm Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 08:39 -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
* The iconv library works only on lazy ByteStrings, and does not
handle Strings or strict ByteStrings
There is a very good reason for this. The right solution in this
John Goerzen wrote:
I am concerned that the same thing is happening in Haskell. We know
have three common list-like types: the regular list, strict
ByteString, and lazy ByteString.
Why do you consider ByteString to be list-like but not arrays?
1) Does everyone agree with me that we have a
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
2) Would it make sense to make ListLike, or something like it,
part of the Haskell core?
I don't think ListLike is the right approach. It's basically a fairly
arbitrary collection of functions. It would be preferable,
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 8:42:56 pm Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
I am concerned that the same thing is happening in Haskell. We know
have three common list-like types: the regular list, strict
ByteString, and lazy ByteString.
Why do you consider ByteString to be
23 matches
Mail list logo
