Humn... I agree with both of you, Albert and Tom. I started
it from the
beginning, using map and don't using reverse anymore. But the
C program is
still 7x faster than the Haskell one. Here is the code of the Haskell
program:
main :: IO ()
main = do
bmFile - openFileEx in.txt
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, in Haskell each character of the string takes 20 bytes: 12 bytes
for the list cell, and 8 bytes for the character itself
Why does a list cell consume as much as 12 bytes? Two pointers (data
and next) and a 32-bit tag field, perhaps? And a 64-bit
Hi all
I've been reading the GHC docs and they say that strict functions are
good for space and time. Section 6.2 goes on to explain how to read the
.hi files to determine the strictness of a function. However, it doesn't
explain all the cases I am seeing. Example of the ones I've noticed are:
Recently I've been experimenting with a sort of OOP with GHC, using existential types
and
(overlapping, undecidable) multi-parameter type classes, but it doesn't seem to work
as you
might expect because of the way GHC resolves overloaded functions at compile-time.
For example,
given class A
G'day all.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 02:30:59PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
Also, the prelude definition of zipWith has LVL whereas the following
definition has LVV. Why is something like the following not used?
zipWith :: (a-b-c) - [a] - [b] - [c]
zipWith f (a:as) (b:bs) = f
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To really match the C program, you need to use IOExts.hGetBuf and
IOExts.hPutBuf, and do the operations on raw characters in memory.
Using a UArray of Word8 would be better, but there aren't any
operations to do IO to/from a UArray yet (actually I've
I am about to rewrite my Z animation tool (JAZA) in a style that
makes more intensive use of state monads.
However, my experiments with a simplified lambda-calculus example
shows that (with GHC 5.00) the state monad is dramatically less
efficient than the simple identity monad:
4 TIMES
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:02:54 +0200, George Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
So is there any other way of doing this sort of dynamic lookup at
runtime, in a reasonably neat way?
There is module Dynamic. I don't know if it helps or is reasonably
neat.
--
__( Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL
£ 5 million worth of
Bank Mortgage Reposessions
Terraced houses
ideal for renting. Tenants waiting.
SMITH HAWKSHAW
PROPERTIES
Full Property Management Service
available.
Finance available
from 5% fixed for 5
years
Our family have been
purveyors of
properties for over 100 years.
For
At 2001-10-19 08:02, George Russell wrote:
a naive user (like me a month ago) might expect that this to work, so that
toBool (WrappedA a) (WrappedB b) will return False unless a is an A1, and
b a B1, in which case it returns True.
I think existential types are arranged so that Haskell never
10 matches
Mail list logo
