Of course, that makes sense. Do we already have a way to specify that a field should be lazy? I can imagine programs where we don't want this behaviour, and people would need an escape hatch (or their programs might run slower, or even not terminate). I know we've got lazy patterns with ~, do we have data Foo = Foo ~Int | Bar ~Double
Alex On 17/02/2012, at 11:59, Johan Tibell wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Alex Mason <axm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Sounds like it's definitely worth playing with. I would hesitate to use the >> shootout benchmarks though, simply because anything there is already going >> to be unpacked to the hilt. > > That was the point of number (2) above. By disabling their unpack > pragmas through the compiler and measuring the performance, we can > simulate a world where people don't write unpack pragmas and then see > how much GHC could improve things in such a world. If the gain is > large enough we can turn this optimization on and people can waste > less time cluttering their code with unpack pragmas! > > Note that this proposal doesn't but you any new expressive powers. The > intention is two-fold: decrease the amount of clutter in Haskell > programs and have code written by beginner/intermediate level > Haskellers perform better out-of-the-box. > >> How difficult do you think it would be to implement this in GHC? > > Quite easy I think. All the difficulty is in getting good benchmarks. > > -- Johan _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
