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
