On 1/15/12 10:02 AM, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:48 PM, wren ng thornton<w...@freegeek.org>
wrote:
On 12/12/11 3:37 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
I've noticed that take and filter are good producers (and consumers) for
list fusion, but takeWhile, drop, and dropWhile are not. Is there any
reason for this discrepancy?
If not, would I need to go through the libraries@ process for fixing it,
or should I just submit a patch?
In working on a patch to fix this I've come upon a question. The fusion
rules for take seem a bit odd in that they translate the take into a foldr
which produces (Int# -> b), instead of passing the Int# in directly and
using foldr to produce the b.
Does anyone know why?
This is the "turn any list traversal into a foldr using a higher-order
fold" trick.
I know _what_ it's doing, I'm more curious about why. From looking
through the code there didn't appear to be any reason to prefer this
higher-order version instead of the straight-forward version. I'm
curious if there's some performance quirk that I should beware of...
Oh, right. The cons of the list algebra isn't fixed throughout the
recursion. Duh. Should've tried to see if it was even possible the easy way.
--
Live well,
~wren
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
