Hi Bill,
please note that "null list" just forces the first cell to be evaluated. I.e.
the list (x: xs), just x is evaluated, but not xs. That means, that just the code in you
function is evaluated that is really required for x.
If your return type is a list, then you might get away with determin
Many thanks to both Georg and Lemmih. Actually, I had considered laziness,
but I didn't pursue it enough. I tried one version of runNReps in which I
passed (f x) as an additional arg; when that didn't work, a little thought
convinced me that laziness was doing me in. I also tried another approac
Hi Bill,
You know, Haskell is so smart that it realised that you want to measure it and
therefore it performs very good -- NO, I am just kidding!
Welcome to lazy programming!
The thing is, that you don't force the evaluation of the result of you function
f. Therefore you program doesn't bother to
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:48:18 -0600, jekwtw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm putting together a script to gather run-time stats for some functions
> I'm working with, and I'm having a terrible time. My strategy is to
> evaluate a function a number of times and compute the difference between the
