----- Original Message ----- From: "Duncan Coutts - [EMAIL PROTECTED]" Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 9:09 PM
> On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 11:29 -0800, Jeremy Shaw wrote: > > The only case it is a benefit is when it accidentally happens and it's just > a bonus, but in that case you never needed the optimisation it in the > first place. > If you prefer consistently slower code to accidentilly faster one, you can still turn off the optimisations of your choice. :) > > We already have this issue in Haskell with strictness. > This holds for nearly every automatical optimisation, doesn't it? > > So if it were easy to find out the uniqueness that the compiler was > inferring then it might actually be useful to people that it did such an > inference. Since in that case they would be able to check that it was > actually kicking in and modify their code if it were not. You would also > want to be able to ask the questions "why is it not unique here when I > expect it to be", just like the compiler currently answers our question > of why the type is not what we expect it to be at some place in the > program. > > Duncan > I couldn't agree more. Regards, zooloo p.s.: Strangely, Tomasz's reply again appears as being sent from my address in the archive. Anyone knows why? p.p.s: At least as weirdly, the first version of my duplicated mail unexpectedly _has_ shown up again (after more than 5 hours), whilst another, later message of mine was posted within minutes! Sorry everyone for the inconvenience. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 05.12.2005 _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
