> I wonder if JHC > or some other compiler might work better with these examples?
Are you saying that different compilers might give different answers? Yikes! Too clever indeed! 2009/3/26 <[email protected]>: > On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Thomas Hartman wrote: > >> With the state version, there's a lot of behind-the-scenes magic, and >> as we've seen, things can go wrong. >> >> Also, the issue isn't infinite lists, but lists that are longer than >> the sum of the partitions provided. The state monad partition version >> goes equally as badly awry if the test is restructured as >> >> testP pf = mapM_ putStrLn [ >> show . pf ( take 1000 [3,7..] ) $ [1..10] >> , show . pf [3,7,11,15] $ ( take (10^6) [1..]) >> , show . head . last $ pf (take 1000 $ [3,3..]) [1..10^6] >> ] > > This is interesting. It seems to be the familiar issue that sequence does > not play as nicely with the GC as one might imagine: > <http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/7itbi/mapm_mapm_and_monadic_statements/c06rwnb?context=1> > > I suspect this may be a general problem that we will keep encountering when > using higher-order functions, at least with this compiler. I wonder if JHC > or some other compiler might work better with these examples? > > -- > Russell O'Connor <http://r6.ca/> > ``All talk about `theft,''' the general counsel of the American Graphophone > Company wrote, ``is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in > ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as defined by statute.'' > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
