Hi!
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 02:19:45PM +0400, Serge D. Mechveliani wrote:
Dear Haskell implementors,
How do you think, is the program (1) equivalent to (2)
in the meaning of Haskell-98 ?
(1) (\ x - (if p x then foo (g x) else foo (h x))
where
p ... g
On 10 October 2004 02:01, Peter Simons wrote:
in a module I am writing, I am using a 'StateT st IO' monad
with a state like this:
data MyState st = ST !Int !st
My own monad is yet-another wrapper for ... another state
monad. And that's getting inconvenient.
So I wondered whether it
Can you give a small program that runs 1000x faster in one form compared
with the other?
Currently, if foo is strict, GHC transforms (2) into (1), not the other
way round. In general, transforming (1) into (2) looks hard, because it
means finding the common portions of two expressions. But I'd
First, thanks to the people who correct me about `equivalence',
(I skip the name because the letter was addressed privately).
Because we do not mean to compile each program to the equivalent
one of
error bottom
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 12:44:49PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Can you
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 04:32:08PM +0400, Serge D. Mechveliani wrote:
First, thanks to the people who correct me about `equivalence',
(I skip the name because the letter was addressed privately).
Because we do not mean to compile each program to the equivalent
one of
error bottom
Ah I see. You get earlier results, but the overall computation is
unchanged.
Hmm. I can't say I'm persuaded. The transformation is unsound in
general and, because it makes programs lazier, it'll slow programs down
a bit; in exchange there's the possibility of earlier output (which may
or may
I cvs-updated my copy moments ago, but I still get this
error when compiling my ADNS.hsc bindings with the new
version:
/tmp/ghc12865.hc: In function `s8Ej_ret':
/tmp/ghc12865.hc:6355: error: `ADNS_d7gS' undeclared (first use in this function)
/tmp/ghc12865.hc:6355: error: (Each undeclared
Hi,
If I have two modules which are mutually recursive;
module A where
data TA = TA String deriving (Data, Typeable)
module B where
data TB = TB TA deriving (Data, Typeable)
How do I got about writing a hi-boot that will work in GHC? The problem
is that to do proper XML Schema
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 04:35:30PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Ah I see. You get earlier results, but the overall computation is
unchanged.
Hmm. I can't say I'm persuaded. The transformation is unsound in
general and, because it makes programs lazier, it'll slow programs down
a
Dear Haskell implementors,
How do you think, is the program (1) equivalent to (2)
in the meaning of Haskell-98 ?
(1) (\ x - (if p x then foo (g x) else foo (h x))
where
p ... g ... h ... foo ...
)
(2) (\ x - foo ((if p x then g x else h x)
Dear Haskell implementors,
Consider the compilation flag -allow-extension-for-bottom
which changes the language meaning so that allows to ignore
the bottom value. For example, the programs
(1) (\ x - (if p x then foo (g x) else foo (h x)) )
and
(2) (\ x - foo ((if p x then g x
Serge,
How do you think, is the program (1) equivalent to (2)
in the meaning of Haskell-98 ?
(1) (\ x - (if p x then foo (g x) else foo (h x))
where
p ... g ... h ... foo ...
)
(2) (\ x - foo ((if p x then g x else h x)
where
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Serge D. Mechveliani wrote:
How do you think, is the program (1) equivalent to (2)
in the meaning of Haskell-98 ?
Not at all. If foo is non-strict and p partial, (2) may yield a result
where (1) would not. You identify the possibility yourself: (2) is lazier.
(1) (\ x
13 matches
Mail list logo
