Suppose I write something like this:
foo :: [Int]
foo = concat (replicate 4 [4,7,2,9])
The value of foo is completely determined at compile-time. So, will
the compiler generate calls to concat and replicate, or will it just
insert a large list constant here?
Obviously, once somebody has
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 04:01:34PM +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Suppose I write something like this:
foo :: [Int]
foo = concat (replicate 4 [4,7,2,9])
The value of foo is completely determined at compile-time. So, will the
compiler generate calls to concat and replicate, or will it just
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 04:01:34PM +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Suppose I write something like this:
foo :: [Int]
foo = concat (replicate 4 [4,7,2,9])
The value of foo is completely determined at compile-time. So, will the
compiler generate calls to concat and
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 04:10:58PM +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 04:01:34PM +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Suppose I write something like this:
foo :: [Int]
foo = concat (replicate 4 [4,7,2,9])
The value of foo is completely determined at
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 04:10:58PM +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
OK. I presume this is due to the fact that the result of executing an
expression at compile-time could be arbitrarily large?
Yes, and it's not even guaranteed to terminate.
That would be
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 04:31:33PM +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Both. A curious feature of the STG machine is that constructor thunks
and evaluated data are represented identically in memory.
Ooo... As per the Lambdacats Boxed cat has a uniform representation?
Well, presumably the guys who
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 04:31:33PM +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Well, presumably the guys who designed STG did it this way for a really
good reason, and they know far more than me, so... ;-)
The STG-machine was brilliant when it was designed, but times have
On Nov 17, 2007, at 11:26 AM, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
The STG-machine was brilliant when it was designed, but times have
changed. In particular, indirect jumps are no longer cheap. Pointer
tagging has allowed STG to hobble into the 21st century, but really
the
air is ripe for a new abstract
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 12:39:14PM -0600, Jake McArthur wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007, at 11:26 AM, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
The STG-machine was brilliant when it was designed, but times have
changed. In particular, indirect jumps are no longer cheap. Pointer
tagging has allowed STG to hobble into the
Stefan O'Rear writes:
Jake McArthur wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007, at 11:26 AM, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
The STG-machine was brilliant when it was designed, but times have
changed. ... really the
air is ripe for a new abstract machine.
Do you know of any candidates?
Hahaha - no.
(Do ask John
10 matches
Mail list logo
