Hello Taral, Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 2:14:17 AM, you wrote:
T> On 3/18/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Of course, the caller could invoke addmul using a bang patterns, as in >> >> let ( !s, !p ) = addmul x y >> in ... >> >> but that's quite different to statically knowing (from the type) that >> the two results of addmul will already be evaluated. The latter leaves >> room for more optimisations. T> I looked back at this, and I'm not sure that this statement (which T> appears to be the core reason for considering this) is true at all. I T> don't see that more optimization follows from the availability of T> information regarding the strictness of a function result's T> subcomponents. ghc uses unboxed tuples just for such sort of optimizations. instead of returning possibly-unevaluated pair with possibly-unevaluated elements it just return, say, two doubles in registers - a huge win -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
