On 8/13/09, Jake McArthur jake.mcart...@gmail.com wrote:
Jake McArthur wrote:
The monoids package offers something similar to this:
mapReduce :: (Generator c, Reducer e m) = (Elem c - e) - c - m
If we take (Elem c) to be (item), (e) to be (item'), (c) to be (full), and
(m) to be
John Lato wrote:
This looks to be essentially the same as the 'map' function in
ListLike, and suffers from the same problem. It won't have the
performance characteristics of the native map functions. Using e.g.
ByteStrings, you're recreating a ByteString by snoc'ing elements.
Oh, I see now
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Jake McArthurjake.mcart...@gmail.com wrote:
John Lato wrote:
This might work with UVector (I intend to try it this evening); I
don't know how well the fusion framework will hold up in class
dictionaries.
Do report back, as I am curious as well.
I have just
Yeah, my answer on the ByteString front is to make a bunch of Reducers for a
Builder data type that works like the one in Data.Binary.Builder. It
generates a much more suitable Reducer and can reduce Chars, Strings, Strict
and Lazy UTF8-encoded Bytestrings, etc. I'm using that inside of my toy
Hello,
The recent discussion regarding One Container Class To Rule Them All
got me to thinking about container classes and map functions.
ListLike (which is really a pretty nice package, and I would like to
see more people use it) provides two map functions, a regular map with
type
map :: (item
The monoids package offers something similar to this:
mapReduce :: (Generator c, Reducer e m) = (Elem c - e) - c - m
If we take (Elem c) to be (item), (e) to be (item'), (c) to be (full),
and (m) to be (full'), it's basically the same thing, and offers the
same advantages as the ones you
Jake McArthur wrote:
The monoids package offers something similar to this:
mapReduce :: (Generator c, Reducer e m) = (Elem c - e) - c - m
If we take (Elem c) to be (item), (e) to be (item'), (c) to be (full),
and (m) to be (full'), it's basically the same thing, and offers the
same
