22 Sep 1999 09:43:19 +0100, Will Partain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> * You can drop down to non-standard Haskell, and express
> your code with (e.g.) unboxed values, bytePrimArray#s, --
> i.e. direct access to the machinery that GHC's libraries
> use;
Hmm, I think it would be more usable if it was possible to declare
somehow that e.g. a function argument is to be unboxed, but without
changing all the places where it is used.
Similarly if one could choose between String and PackedString at some
critical places, without having to use completely different functions
which operate on them. Isn't this a good place to use type classes?
ghc's FiniteMap has a different interface than Array, Array is
different than a list, and Set is different than a set represented by
a list of values, although they may often serve identical purposes.
Maybe official wrapping them in type classes should wait for inclusion
of MPTC in the standard...
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kki.net.pl/qrczak/
\__/ GCS/M d- s+:-- a22 C+++>+++$ UL++>++++$ P+++ L++>++++$ E-
^^ W++ N+++ o? K? w(---) O? M- V? PS-- PE++ Y? PGP->+ t
QRCZAK 5? X- R tv-- b+>++ DI D- G+ e>++++ h! r--%>++ y-
