2008/10/20 Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In general, being able to specialise polymorphic structures so they look
>> like unpacked
>> monomorphic ones would be awesome.
>>
>> (!Int, !Bool) -> (,) {-# UNPACK #-}!Int {-# UNPACK #-}!Bool
>
> I repeat my concern about this notation and the implications thereof.
> (!Int, !Bool) cannot be passed to a function accepting (a,b).
>
> However, I feel there's something very useful here that should be
> fleshed out rather than hacked. For example, a theory of composable
> strict structures in a lazy language.
This paper might be of interest to you, assuming you haven't seen it:
http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/not-not-ml/index.htm. It
doesn't really deal with the issue of UNPACKed data structures, but
does show the first steps towards making sense of types like [!Int] vs
[Int] (if we consider !Int as an "ML-style Int" (albeit a boxed one)
and Int as the vanilla Haskell flavour).
Cheers,
Max
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
