On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Einar Karttunen wrote:
Size
Handling large amounts of text as haskell strings is currently not
possible as the representation (list of chars) is very inefficient.
Efficiency is always a reason to mess everything. But the inefficiency
applies to lists of every data
On 20.09 12:59, Henning Thielemann wrote:
Handling large amounts of text as haskell strings is currently not
possible as the representation (list of chars) is very inefficient.
Efficiency is always a reason to mess everything. But the inefficiency
applies to lists of every data type, so
Would it not bet better is String were a typeclass instead of a data type.
Then the string operations could be redefined by implementation, so you
may have strings as lists or strings as arrays?
Keean.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, MR K P SCHUPKE wrote:
Would it not bet better is String were a typeclass instead of a data type.
It would be nice to have a Sequence type class which provides a uniform
interface for common operations on List and Array, Lists of Arrays and so
on. Then String could be based
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:11:34PM +0300, Einar Karttunen wrote:
Size
Handling large amounts of text as haskell strings is currently not
possible as the representation (list of chars) is very inefficient.
You know about the PackedString functions, right?
On 20.09 15:05, Dylan Thurston wrote:
You know about the PackedString functions, right?
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/6.0/html/base/Data.PackedString.html
Yes, but they are quite broken. I am using FastPackedString from
darcs for many purposes, which is like PackedString in many
ways.
G'day all.
Quoting Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Efficiency is always a reason to mess everything.
OTOH, when efficiency matters, it REALLY matters. (The flip side of
this is that efficiency doesn't always mean what you think it means.)
The problem is that the current representation
