On 13/10/13 21:42, AntC wrote: >> Niklas Hambüchen <mail <at> nh2.me> writes: >> >> In sets, the order does not matter, while for nub it does. >> > > Let's be careful here!. Niklas, when you say "order", do you mean: > * the _ordering_ from the Ord instance? Or > * the relative sequence of elements in the list? > >> ... the fact that Set is used inside my proposed >> ordNub implementation is a detail not visible to the caller. > > If you use the Set library, that fact may be very visible! > Because Set re-sequences the whole list, as per its Ord instance. > > But List.nub preserves the list sequence (except for omitting duplicates).
I mean *exactly* what you say here. ordNub behaves has the same behaviour as nub, while (Set.toList . Set.fromList) doesn't. > [BTW I am still less than convinced that overall a Set-based ordNub is > significantly more efficient. I suspect it depends on how big is your > list.] What do you mean? ordNub is clearly in a different complexity class, and the benchmarks that I provided show not only this, but also that ordNub is *always* faster than nub, even for singleton lists. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
