On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Twan van Laarhoven wrote:
> Benjamin Franksen wrote:
>
> > My personal opinion is that it should be exactly the other way around:
> >
> > All normal bindings (i.e. using '=') should be as polymorphic and
> > general as possible.
>
> Do you mean *all* bindings, or only top-level ones? If you really mean all,
> wouldn't e be polymorphic (with type Num a=>a) in, say:
> > f x = e + e
> > where e = very_expensive_polymorphic_function x
>
> That would be a Very Bad Thing.
>
Is there any reason in that particular case that the dictionary transform
can't produce something like this:
f x d = e' + e'
where e d = very_expensive_polymorphic_function x d
e' = e d
? What's the pathological case that prevents this applying more generally?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Performance anxiety leads to premature optimisation
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
