On Jun 4, 2005, at 1:28 AM, Adrian Hey wrote:
On Saturday 04 Jun 2005 1:33 am, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
Replace "4 million" by, say, 2^32 or 2^64 and I think the point
stands.
The set must fit in your addressable memory, and can thus be counted
by a similar-sized Int.
And thus, genericLength doesn't make particular sense for these sets.
There is no risk of overflow.
...
I'm afraid I still don't really understand point we're debating, so
can't comment on whether or not it stands (unless the point is
that you can't deal with sets that won't fit in available memory :-)
Hopefully the extra sentence clarifies the point? The original debate
seemed to focus around the need to measure map size with an Integer,
because they might be Really Big or even infinite. That's not actually
feasible, since a map with O(1) size measurement is by definition
strict.
-Jan-Willem Maessen
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
