ndmitchell: > Hi > > > Optimisation and ghci don't go together, so I don't know what your point > > is there. > > It's very worth having the application work in both Hugs and GHCi, and > its not always GHC=faster, only if you compile it - so you trade your > compile time for your run time. A delicate balance, with more than one > local optima.
But you'd always compile the code if you cared about performance anyway. 20 years of optimisation technology only comes into play then. > > Anyway, its the same with ByteString -- we have it work in ghci or hugs > > or nhc, but its only worth actually optimising for GHC. > > Can you use overloaded Strings with Hugs? I am not aware of how to. I > am happy to use RULES's and pragmas etc, but I can't see a way of > doing overloaded strings this way, as by the time I've got to RULES > I've gained the unpackCString, which just won't go away! You'd have to conditionally use overloaded strings in GHC only. I'm not sure it would work ( can you quantify the cost of not being able to take head at compile time? ) -- Don _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
