On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 07:49 +0100, Jos Pedro Magalhes wrote:
Hi,
2012/2/23 Maxime Henrion mhenr...@gmail.com
* Why do you have the instance:
instance GDeepSeq V1 where grnf _ = ()
The only way to construct values of a void type is
2012/2/24 Maxime Henrion mhenr...@gmail.com
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 07:49 +0100, Jos Pedro Magalhes wrote:
Hi,
2012/2/23 Maxime Henrion mhenr...@gmail.com
* Why do you have the instance:
instance GDeepSeq V1 where grnf _ = ()
The only
2012/2/24 Clark Gaebel cgae...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca:
Since insertion [2] is O(min(n, W)) [ where W is the number of bits in an
Int ], wouldn't it be more efficient to just fold 'insert' over one of the
lists for a complexity of O(m*min(n, W))? This would degrade into O(m) in
the worst case, as
Folding insert might still be a win if one of the maps is very much smaller
than the other, but since size is O(n) for Data.IntMap, there's no way to
find out if that's the case.
- chris
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:48 AM, wren ng thornton w...@freegeek.org wrote:
When the two maps are of vastly
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 09:32 +0100, Jos Pedro Magalhes wrote:
2012/2/24 Maxime Henrion mhenr...@gmail.com
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 07:49 +0100, Jos Pedro Magalhes wrote:
Hi,
2012/2/23 Maxime Henrion mhenr...@gmail.com
* Why do
I don't understand what's going on here. Instances for V1 should of
course be defined if they can be! And in this case, a V1 instance
makes sense and should be defined. The definition itself doesn't
matter, as it'll never be executed.
Cheers,
Andres
Hi Andres,
2012/2/24 Andres Löh andres.l...@googlemail.com
I don't understand what's going on here. Instances for V1 should of
course be defined if they can be! And in this case, a V1 instance
makes sense and should be defined. The definition itself doesn't
matter, as it'll never be
Hi.
I don't understand what's going on here. Instances for V1 should of
course be defined if they can be! And in this case, a V1 instance
makes sense and should be defined. The definition itself doesn't
matter, as it'll never be executed.
The definition certainly matters:
[...]
You're
As promised, here are the (live-updating) results. The surveys will remain
open, keep em coming...
hledger:
Details:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au47MrJax8HpdHVGUHBXRUhRNWF3Y2RsZGVHNmlFLWc#gid=3
Summary:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 01:18:22PM -0800, Matt Brown wrote:
Hi all,
I'm reading the haskellwiki article on multiplate. Is it possible to
modify the getVariablesPlate example to return the free variables?
One idea I had is to store an environment in a reader monad, and use
local to update
I'm not familiar with Multiplate either, but presumably you can
descend into the decl - collect the bound vars, then descend into the
body expr.
Let $ decl child d * expr child e
This seems like a common traversal that Strafunski would handle, and
with Multiplate being a competitor / successor
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 15:28 +0100, Andres Löh wrote:
Hi.
I don't understand what's going on here. Instances for V1 should of
course be defined if they can be! And in this case, a V1 instance
makes sense and should be defined. The definition itself doesn't
matter, as it'll never be
On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 23:24 +0100, Bas van Dijk wrote:
Some nitpicking:
* In the instance:
instance GDeepSeq U1 where grnf _ = ()
I think it makes sense to pattern match on the U1 constructor, as in:
grnf U1 = ().
I haven't checked if that's necessary but my fear is that assuming:
I've wondered if it's faster to insert many keys by successive
insertion, or by building another map and then unioning, and likewise
with deletion. I eventually decided on successive, thinking a log n
build + merge is going to be slower than a m*log n for successive
insertion. So I wound up
14 matches
Mail list logo
