G'day all.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 07:42:59AM +0200, Jan Scheffczyk wrote:
I always thought that there is a tiny difference between let and where:
They're semantically equivalent. See, for example:
http://haskell.org/onlinereport/decls.html#sect4.4.3.2
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
I'm finishing up my Haskell interface to WordNet
(http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/) and have a standard
unsafePerformIO question :).
Basically, the interface functions by first calling an initialization
function, 'initializeWordNet :: IO WordNetEnv'. WordNetEnv is
essentially just a
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:27:23 +0100, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If the databases *do* change over time, then there are two
possibilities:
1. the contents change due to external factors only
2. the contents change because this program doing the writing
in (1), you can still pretend
If the databases *do* change over time, then there are two
possibilities:
1. the contents change due to external factors only
2. the contents change because this program doing the writing
in (1), you can still pretend the interface is pure, by
imagining that
all the changes
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:52:57 +0100, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Isn't there the possibility of inlining causing a read to
happen twice even if it only appears to happen once?
In theory that would be a valid transformation, but in practice no
compiler would duplicate arbitrary
Isn't there the possibility of inlining causing a read to
happen twice even if it only appears to happen once?
In theory that would be a valid transformation, but in practice no
compiler would duplicate arbitrary computations. GHC
certainly doesn't.
I was thinking of a situation
On Tuesday, 2003-08-19, 13:18, Simon Marlow wrote:
[...]
Yes, I agree that one shouldn't rely on the no duplication of work
property. However, folloing this argument we arrive at the conclusion that
hGetContents is an invalid use of unsafePerformIO. (which is something I've
been saying for
On Tuesday, 2003-08-19, 13:18, Simon Marlow wrote:
[...]
Yes, I agree that one shouldn't rely on the no duplication of work
property. However, folloing this argument we arrive at the
conclusion that
hGetContents is an invalid use of unsafePerformIO. (which
is something I've
G'day all.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:11:23AM +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
I was thinking of a situation like
let x = unsafePerformIO readFooFromDB in x+x
I see from your Secrets of the GHC inliner paper that x wouldn't be
inlined by GHC, but it seems to me like a serious abuse of
Hi Andrew,
let x = expensiveComputation foo in x + x
I would certainly hope that expensiveComputation wasn't called twice,
and even though the language doesn't guarantee it, I have already
written code that assumed it.
I always thought that there is a tiny difference between let and
10 matches
Mail list logo
