Thomas Johnsson wrote:
Lennart Augustsson writes:
Simon Peyton Jones' comments about dictionary passing are a red herring,
since they assume a particular form of compiler. Various (MLj, MLton)
ML compilers already inline out all polymorphism.
ML is a language where you can do
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Incidentally, this has nothing to do with allowing polymorphic recursion
on functions in Haskell. It could be done earlier too, but then it had
to be encoded using a class and instance declaration.
I would argue that methods are in fact polymorphically recursive
Simon Peyton Jones' comments about dictionary passing are a red herring,
since they assume a particular form of compiler. Various (MLj, MLton)
ML compilers already inline out all polymorphism.
ML is a language where you can do this. In Haskell it is not always
possible to eliminate all
| [One way to compile polymorphic code is to inline all uses of
| polymorphic values...]
|
| It would require to keep bodies of all polymorphic functions in
| a form allowing instantiation in different modules. For example
| ghc already requires too much memory (even a hundred MB for large
|
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
George Russell wrote:
I'm sorry if this is a FAQ, but I'm curious to know why Haskell (or at least, GHC
and Hugs)
doesn't seem able to use contexts on variables at the front of data declarations.
There has been some discussion on contexts on data declarations
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
[snip]
Such monomorphisation is not possible for Haskell in general, because it
allows polymorphic recursion. As a consequence, the number of
dictionaries constructed for a given program also is potentially
infinite.
[snip]
Yes OK, that's another case, like
George Russell wrote:
(3) Simon Peyton Jones' comments about dictionary passing are a red herring,
since they assume a particular form of compiler. Various (MLj, MLton)
ML compilers already inline out all polymorphism. Some C++ compilers/linkers
do it in a rather crude way as
