Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| I remember a similar discussion a few years ago. The question of
whether
| or not overloading list literals a good idea notwithstanding, the
problem
| with this is that fromList for vectors is highly inefficient. So if
| something like this gets implemented
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| pointer to the actual data somewhere in memory and use that. This is
| more or less what happens for strings at the moment, even though you
| have to use rewrite rules to get at the pointer which, in my opinion, is
| neither ideal nor really necessary. IMO, the
Michael Snoyman wrote:
The simplest example I can think of is allowing easier usage of Vector:
[1, 2, 3] :: Vector Int
In order to allow this, we could use a typeclass approach similar to
how OverloadedStrings works:
class IsList a where
fromList :: [b] - a b
Myles C. Maxfield wrote:
Aha there it is! Thanks so much. I didn't see it because it's under the
Unfolding section instead of the Construction section.
You're quite right, having a separate Unfolding section isn't the best
idea. I'll fix this.
Roman
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Roman
Myles C. Maxfield wrote:
Overall, I'm looking for a function, similar to Data.Vector's 'generate'
function, but instead of the generation function taking the destination
index, I'd like it to take the elements that have previously been
constructed. Is there such a function? If there isn't
On 12 Jun 2012, at 12:52, Dmitry Dzhus d...@dzhus.org wrote:
12.06.2012, 01:08, Roman Leshchinskiy r...@cse.unsw.edu.au:
perhaps the state hack is getting in the way.
I don't quite understand the internals of this yet, but `-fno-state-hack`
leads to great performance in both cases!
How
On 11/06/2012, at 18:52, Evan Laforge wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy r...@cse.unsw.edu.au
wrote:
Vector should definitely fuse this, if it doesn't it's a bug. Please report
if it doesn't for you. To verify, just count the number of letrecs in the
optimised
On 11/06/2012, at 10:38, Dmitry Dzhus wrote:
Consider this simple source where we generate an unboxed vector with million
pseudo-random numbers:
8 -
import qualified Data.Vector.Unboxed as VU
import System.Random.MWC
import System.Random.MWC.Distributions (standard)
count =
On 29/05/2012, at 19:49, Evan Laforge wrote:
Good question.. I copied both to a file and tried ghc-core, but it
inlines big chunks of Data.Vector and I can't read it very well, but
it looks like the answer is no, it still builds the the list of sums.
I guess the next step is to benchmark and
Marc Weber wrote:
Replying to all replies at once:
Malcolm Wallace
At work, we have a strict version of Haskell
:-) which proofs that it is worth thinking about it.
But doesn't necessarily prove that it's a good idea.
Just (Item id ua t k v) -
Marc Weber wrote:
Replying to all replies at once:
Malcolm Wallace
At work, we have a strict version of Haskell
:-) which proofs that it is worth thinking about it.
But doesn't necessarily prove that it's a good idea.
Just (Item id ua t k v) -
On 12/01/2012, at 21:01, Artyom Kazak wrote:
Yves Parès limestr...@gmail.com писал(а) в своём письме Thu, 12 Jan 2012
13:14:16 +0200:
uvector is deprecated, its functionnalities has been ported into vector.
Yes, but a Ratio a instance hasn't been ported.
FWIW, vector isn't a port of
On 11/01/2012, at 17:00, Artyom Kazak wrote:
In fact, I am surprised that Data.Vector doesn't have a Ratio
instance, but has a Complex instance. Any ideas, why?
Nobody has asked for it so far.
Roman
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Johan Tibell wrote:
map (\ v - undefined) == undefined
mapKeys (\ k - undefined) == undefined
Not really related to the question but I don't really understand how these
properties can possibly hold. Shouldn't it be:
map (\v - undefined) x = undefined
And even then, does
Yves Parès wrote:
While re-reading RealWorldHaskell, chapter 25, I saw that -- unlike I
believed -- loop fusion wasn't activated by default under GHC for lists
(but that module Data.List.Stream from package stream-fusion could provide
it).
Note that stream fusion is only one way to do
Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Iâm consdering to change some performance critical code from Vector to
MVector, hopefully avoiding a lot of copying and garbage collecting. But
it seems that the Data.Vector.Mutable interface at
Conrad Parker wrote:
On 15 October 2011 23:18, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 October 2011 01:15, Bas van Dijk v.dijk@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that you shouldn't use ByteStrings or Vectors of Word8s for
Unicode strings. However I can imagine that for quick
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
On 19 October 2011 22:09, Roman Leshchinskiy r...@cse.unsw.edu.au wrote:
So it seems that (1) people have very different requirements and (2) the
Show instance only really matters for debugging in ghci. Here is a
thought. What if ghci allowed Show instances
Michael Snoyman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Bas van Dijk v.dijk@gmail.com
wrote:
My idea is that when vector-bytestring is as fast as bytestring, it
can replace it. When that happens it doesn't matter if users use the
vector interface. I would even recommend it over using
On 14/10/2011, at 12:37, Bas van Dijk wrote:
If there's need for a specific Show instance for Vectors of Word8s we
can always add one directly to vector. (Roman, what are your thoughts
on this?)
Personally, I think that ByteString and especially Vector Word8 aren't strings
and shouldn't be
On 15/10/2011, at 12:26, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
On 14/10/2011, at 12:37, Bas van Dijk wrote:
If there's need for a specific Show instance for Vectors of Word8s we
can always add one directly to vector. (Roman, what are your thoughts
on this?)
Personally, I think that ByteString
Bas van Dijk wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying to make the following faster:
Data.Vector.Generic.fromList list
where 'list' is some expression yielding a list.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible. The problem is that you
'list' will be expressed in terms of foldr/build and fromList would
On 25/09/2011, at 18:20, Chris Smith wrote:
class Ord a = Range a where
rangeFromTo :: a - a - [a] -- subsumes Ix.range / Enum.enumFromTo
rangeFromThenTo :: a - a - a - [a]
inRange :: (a, a) - a - Bool
-- Does have instances for Float/Double. List ranges desugar to this.
-- Also
On 28/09/2011, at 23:23, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
On 29 September 2011 07:56, Roman Leshchinskiy r...@cse.unsw.edu.au wrote:
On 25/09/2011, at 18:20, Chris Smith wrote:
class Ord a = Range a where
rangeFromTo :: a - a - [a] -- subsumes Ix.range / Enum.enumFromTo
rangeFromThenTo
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
Roman Leshchinskiy r...@cse.unsw.edu.au writes:
No, arrays were not considered to be bad, they were designed
with parallelism in mind.
I'm not sure how this can be the case if, as discussed below, most array
operations have to go through lists, an inherently sequential
Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies, FlexibleContexts, UndecidableInstances,
FlexibleInstances #-}
import Data.Fixpoint
newtype Expr = Expr { unExpr :: Pre Expr Expr }
instance Functor (Pre Expr) = Fixpoint Expr where
data Pre Expr a
= Add
On 03/09/2011, at 03:04, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
On 3 September 2011 11:38, Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com wrote:
The result is that my first contact with haskell
arrays left me with the impression that they were complicated, hard to
use, and designed for someone with different
Gregory Collins wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Eric Rasmussen ericrasmus...@gmail.com
wrote:
It runs quickly, but I naively thought I could outperform it by
reworking many to build a vector directly, instead of having to build
a list first and then convert it to a vector:
manyVec
Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
Of course I don't claim that fusion is useless -- just trying to
understand the problem it solves. Are we saving a few closures and cons
cells here?
In addition to what everyone else said, fusion can be a big win when it
allows further optimisations. For instance,
Johan Tibell wrote:
I'm working on a patch that provides O(1) size right now. The trick is
to define HashMap as:
data HashMap k v = HM {-# UNPACK #-} !Int !(Tree k v)
Another possibility is:
data HashMap k v = HM Int !(Tree k v)
hashMap t = HM (treeSize t) t
That way size is O(n) on first
Max Bolingbroke wrote:
2011/2/15 Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com:
but currently any pragmas in a class decl are treated as attaching to
the *default method*, not to the method selector:
I see. I didn't realise that that was what was happening. Personally I
find this a bit
Max Bolingbroke wrote:
On 15 February 2011 11:23, Roman Leshchinskiy r...@cse.unsw.edu.au wrote:
I wouldn't necessarily expect this to guarantee inlining for the same
reason that the following code doesn't guarantee that foo gets rewritten
to big:
foo = bar
{-# INLINE bar #-}
bar = big
Max Bolingbroke wrote:
On 15 February 2011 15:12, Roman Leshchinskiy r...@cse.unsw.edu.au wrote:
Ah, but you assume that bar won't be inlined into foo first. Consider
that it is perfectly acceptable for GHC to generate this:
foo = big {-# INLINE bar #-}
bar = big
We did ask to inline bar
Max Bolingbroke wrote:
On 15 February 2011 16:45, Roman Leshchinskiy r...@cse.unsw.edu.au wrote:
Only if foo has an INLINE pragma. Otherwise, GHC uses whatever RHS is
available when it wants to inline.
Ah, I see! Well yes, in that case my workaround is indeed broken in
the way you describe
Pierre-Etienne Meunier wrote:
This is mostly a question for Roman : how do you use your vector library
with multi-dimensional arrays ? I mean, the array library from the
standard libraries does something more intelligent than the C-like
solution with indirections.
Vector doesn't include any
On 14/12/2010, at 13:35, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
I want to use dph (data parallel haskell) for a presentation.
(Nothing fancy, just compile and run some demos.)
What ghc version should I use and where do I get it?
That's a tricky question. We are currently working on getting DPH to work
On 2 Dec 2010, at 21:29, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Does anybody have any suggestions?
class Mappable t a b where
type Rebind t a b
map :: (a - b) - t - Rebind a b
This is based on an old C++ trick.
Roman
___
On 16/10/2010, at 12:36, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
On 16 October 2010 12:16, Roman Leshchinskiy r...@cse.unsw.edu.au wrote:
eta :: Stream a - Stream a
eta s = Stream s next
where
next (Stream s next') = case next' s of
Just (x,s') - Just (x,Stream s' next
On 16/10/2010, at 12:00, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
Hi Cafe,
I've run across a problem with my use of existential data types,
whereby programs using them are forced to become too strict, and I'm
looking for possible solutions to the problem.
I'm going to explain what I mean by using a
On 25/06/2010, at 06:41, Alexey Khudyakov wrote:
Then constructor like one below arise naturally. And I don't know how to write
them properly. It's possible to use fromList but then list could be allocated
which is obviously wasteful.
vector2 :: Double - Double - Vec2D
vector2 x y = ...
On 27/06/2010, at 19:54, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
Q: What is the mother of all X, where X is some type class?
A: It is a data type D such that:
1. There exist total functions:
lift :: X d = d a - D a
lower :: X d = D a - d a
Are those universally quantified over d? If so, then none of
On 19/05/2010, at 19:24, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Prelude [1,1+2/3..10]
On 19/05/2010, at 20:36, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Roman Leshchinskiy r...@cse.unsw.edu.au writes:
Personally, I consider the Enum class itself to be broken.
Oh? In what sense?
Firstly, the enumFrom* family of functions shouldn't be methods and the class
itself should provide enough
On 19/05/2010, at 23:44, Ben Millwood wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Serguey Zefirov sergu...@gmail.com wrote:
PS
Rationals:
Prelude [1,1+2/3..10] :: [Rational]
[1 % 1,5 % 3,7 % 3,3 % 1,11 % 3,13 % 3,5 % 1,17 % 3,19 % 3,7 % 1,23 %
3,25 % 3,9 % 1,29 % 3,31 % 3]
Same result.
On 17/05/2010, at 05:17, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
As an aside, while there are advantages to writing numerical analysis
routines in Haskell, it might be better strategy to instead link in something
like LAPACK and provide nice wrappers to it in Haskell, since this way you
can harness the
On 17/05/2010, at 02:52, Pierre-Etienne Meunier wrote:
You are quite right that vector only supports nested arrays but not
multidimensional ones. This is by design, however - the library's only goal
is to provide efficient one-dimensional, Int-indexed arrays. I'm thinking
about how to
On 16/05/2010, at 10:17, Pierre-Etienne Meunier wrote:
I've also just noticed a lack in the vector library : multidimensional arrays
seem to require indirections like in caml, whereas in C or in Data.Ix, there
is a way to avoid this. This is especially important for avoiding cache
misses
On 16/05/2010, at 11:54, Mark Wassell wrote:
Hi,
This possibly might go against the spirit of what Stream programming is about
but I having difficulties converting an imperative algorithm [1] into Haskell
and think it would be easier if I was able to write it in a monadic style
with
On 04/05/2010, at 13:30, Luke Palmer wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Kyle Murphy orc...@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that it doesn't is proof enough that there's a problem
with it even if that problem is simply that the types you're using aren't
exactly correct. Further, I'd argue that
On 03/05/2010, at 06:02, Jaco van Iterson wrote:
I was just wondering what methods are best to design/model the software in
bigger projects when you are planning to use Haskell.
Is there no difference compared to other languages? Are there any Haskell
tools?
In addition to what Don said,
On 24/04/2010, at 22:42, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
On 24/04/2010, at 22:06, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
I was thinking of this:
data T = T Double deriving ( Eq, Ord )
... GHC basically produces
instance Ord T where
compare (T x) (T y) = compare x y
t u = compare t u == LT
On 24/04/2010, at 07:29, Don Stewart wrote:
Oh, the Platform has very strict standards about APIs,
What is an API? The package versioning policy only seems to talk about types
and function signatures. John's old-locale example shows that this is not
enough.
Would it perhaps make sense for at
On 24/04/2010, at 18:06, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Roman Leshchinskiy r...@cse.unsw.edu.au writes:
On 24/04/2010, at 07:29, Don Stewart wrote:
Oh, the Platform has very strict standards about APIs,
What is an API? The package versioning policy only seems to talk about
types
On 24/04/2010, at 18:54, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Roman Leshchinskiy r...@cse.unsw.edu.au writes:
On 24/04/2010, at 18:06, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
I would think that the API is all the
functions/classes/datatypes/instances/etc. exported from the library in
combination
On 24/04/2010, at 19:56, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
And yet a lot of generic code is written in terms of compare.
That's can be an advantage, because often that code *should* blow up
when it gets a NaN. E.g., sorting a list of Floats which includes a
NaN.
However, often you will know
On 24/04/2010, at 22:06, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
Currently the standard prelude has default definition:
...
compare x y
| x == y= EQ
| x = y= LT
| otherwise = GT
I'd suggest
[...]
compare x y
| x y = LT
| x
On 23/04/2010, at 01:34, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
I'd suggest that compare involving a NaN should yield
error violation of the law of the excluded middle
Please think of the poor guys trying to write high-performance code in Haskell!
Roman
On 24/04/2010, at 07:15, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
In all seriousness, I think it is reasonable when isNaN x for
x C
x == C
x C
C x
C == x
C x
to all be False, for all floats C, even C=x, as a sort of efficient
weak Bool bottom. This is what the FP hardware does --- so it is very
On 18/04/2010, at 08:07, Ben wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy r...@cse.unsw.edu.au
wrote:
That said, it would be quite possible to provide something like the
following:
fold_inplace :: Vector v a = (v a - b - v a) - v a - [b] - v a
as far as i understand
On 17/04/2010, at 13:32, Ben wrote:
module Main where
import qualified Data.Vector.Generic as V
import qualified Data.Vector.Unboxed as UV
type Vec = UV.Vector Double
axpy :: Double - Vec - Vec - Vec
axpy a x y = V.zipWith (+) (V.map (* a) x) y
sumVecs :: [(Double, Vec)] - Vec
On 17/04/2010, at 11:00, Conal Elliott wrote:
I'm unsure now, but I think I tried making Basis a data type (not syn) and
ran into the problem I mentioned above. The Basis *synonyms* also have
HasTrie instances, which is crucially important. If we switch to (injective)
data types, then we
On 16/04/2010, at 18:06, Mathieu Boespflug wrote:
shortestPath :: [(Int, Int, Int)] - UArray Int Int
shortestPath g = runSTUArray $ do
let mnew = newArray (0, SIZE * SIZE) 1
mread arr i j = unsafeRead arr (i * SIZE + j)
mwrite arr i j x = unsafeWrite arr (i * SIZE + j) x
On 14/04/2010, at 09:05, Xiao-Yong Jin wrote:
I want to use 'mapM' on Data.Vector.Vector, but it looks
like the only 'mapM' defined is in
Data.Vector.Fusion.Stream.Monadic. I'm able to use 'stream'
and 'liftStream' to convert a 'Vector' to a monadic stream,
on which I can use 'mapM'. But I
On 15/04/2010, at 00:30, Brent Yorgey wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:51:52AM +0100, Stephen Tetley wrote:
On 14 April 2010 03:48, Brent Yorgey byor...@seas.upenn.edu wrote:
Can someone more well-versed in the intricacies of type checking with
associated types explain this? Or is this a
On 08/04/2010, at 01:38, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:30 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
In fact, the only safe-ish use for it I have found is to use
Storable-related functions in ST, hoping that the instances don't actually
use any real IO functionality. Arguably
On 07/04/2010, at 07:33, Nicolas Frisby wrote:
I haven't been able to find it via Google or Haddock. An old message
suggests is was just a matter of exceptions?
I don't think that's correct. You can implement unsafePerformIO in terms
unsafeIOToST:
unsafePerformIO :: IO a - a
unsafePerformIO
On 04/04/2010, at 05:33, Chad Scherrer wrote:
Roman Leshchinskiy rl at cse.unsw.edu.au writes:
Ah. I missed that. Then your best bet is probably
replicate n action = munstream v $ Fusion.Stream.Monadic.generateM n (const
action)
$ new n
It's uglier
On 02/04/2010, at 12:16, Don Stewart wrote:
Chad.Scherrer:
Hi,
I'd like to be able to do replicateM, but over a vector instead of a list.
Right now I'm doing this:
The operation you are looking for is called newWith. It probably should be
called replicate.
Roman? Can we generate frozen
On 02/04/2010, at 13:01, Don Stewart wrote:
rl:
replicate :: Int - a - New a
replicate n x = Generic.New.unstream (Fusion.Stream.replicate n x)
and then either
Mutable.run (replicate n x)
to get a mutable vector or
new (replicate n x)
Hmm, but here 'a' is pure. I don't
On 31/03/2010, at 18:14, Achim Schneider wrote:
We have a lot of useful interfaces (e.g. ListLike, Edison), but they
don't seem to enjoy wide-spread popularity.
Perhaps that's an indication that we need different interfaces? IMO, huge
classes which generalise every useful function we can
I'm wondering... Since the DPH libraries are shipped with GHC by default are we
allowed to use them for the shootout?
Roman
On 30/03/2010, at 19:25, Simon Marlow wrote:
The shootout (sorry, Computer Language Benchmarks Game) recently updated to
GHC 6.12.1, and many of the results got worse.
On 29/03/2010, at 02:27, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Does anything change if you swap the first two rhss?
No, not as far as I can tell.
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy r...@cse.unsw.edu.au
wrote:
On 28/03/2010, at 09:47, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
It's important
On 28/03/2010, at 01:36, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
It's worth pointing out that there's a bit of bang-pattern mysticism going on
in this conversation (which has not been uncommon of late!). A non-buggy
strictness analyzer should expose the strictness of these functions without
difficulty.
On 27/03/2010, at 05:27, John Meacham wrote:
Here are jhc's timings for the same programs on my machine. gcc and ghc
both used -O3 and jhc had its full standard optimizations turned on.
jhc:
./hs.out 5.12s user 0.07s system 96% cpu 5.380 total
gcc:
./a.out 5.58s user 0.00s system 97%
On 28/03/2010, at 11:07, John Meacham wrote:
I have not thoroughly checked it, but I think there are a couple things
going on here:
It could also be worthwhile to float out (i*i + j*j) in rangeK instead of
computing it in every loop iteration. Neither ghc nor gcc can do this; if jhc
can then
On 28/03/2010, at 09:47, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
It's important to switch from mod to rem. This can be done by a
simple abstract interpretation.
Also, changing the definition of rem from
a `rem` b
| b == 0 = divZeroError
| a == minBound b == (-1) =
On 19/03/2010, at 08:48, Daniel Fischer wrote:
Am Donnerstag 18 März 2010 21:57:34 schrieb Daniel Fischer:
Contrary to my expectations, however, using unboxed arrays is slower
than straight arrays (in my tests).
However, a few {-# SPECIALISE #-} pragmas set the record straight.
This is
On 06/03/2010, at 03:10, stefan kersten wrote:
i'm still curious, though, why my three versions of direct convolution perform
so differently (see attached file). in particular, i somehow expected conv_3
to
be the slowest and conv_2 to perform similar to conv_1. any ideas? i haven't
had
a
On 08/03/2010, at 12:17, Alexander Solla wrote:
GHC even optimizes it to:
fib = fib
Sounds like an implementation bug, not an infinite dimensional vector space
bug. My guess is that strictness is getting in the way, and forcing what
would be a lazy call to fib in the corresponding
On 05/03/2010, at 04:34, stefan kersten wrote:
i've been hunting down some performance problems in DSP code using vector and
the single most important transformation seems to be throwing in INLINE
pragmas
for any function that uses vector combinators and is to be called from
higher-level
On 12/02/2010, at 23:28, Dan Doel wrote:
On Thursday 11 February 2010 8:54:15 pm Dan Doel wrote:
On Thursday 11 February 2010 12:43:10 pm stefan kersten wrote:
On 10.02.10 19:03, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
I'm thinking of switching the statistics library over to using vector.
that would be
On 12/02/2010, at 12:39, Don Stewart wrote:
bos:
I'm thinking of switching the statistics library over to using vector.
uvector
is pretty bit-rotted in comparison to vector at this point, and it's really
seeing no development, while vector is The Shiny Future. Roman, would you
call
the
On 12/02/2010, at 12:40, Don Stewart wrote:
rl:
On 11/02/2010, at 05:03, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
I'm thinking of switching the statistics library over to using vector.
uvector is pretty bit-rotted in comparison to vector at this point, and
it's really seeing no development, while vector
On 12/02/2010, at 12:54, Dan Doel wrote:
I also notice that vector seems to have discarded the idea of
Vec (A * B) = Vec A * Vec B
Oh no, it hasn't. In contrast to uvector/DPH, which use a custom strict tuple
type for rather outdated reasons, vector uses normal tuples. For instance,
On 12/02/2010, at 13:49, Don Stewart wrote:
rl:
On 12/02/2010, at 12:39, Don Stewart wrote:
bos:
I'm thinking of switching the statistics library over to using vector.
uvector
is pretty bit-rotted in comparison to vector at this point, and it's really
seeing no development, while vector
On 11/02/2010, at 05:03, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
I'm thinking of switching the statistics library over to using vector.
uvector is pretty bit-rotted in comparison to vector at this point, and it's
really seeing no development, while vector is The Shiny Future. Roman, would
you call the
On 18/12/2009, at 00:37, Stephen Lavelle wrote:
Given
class MyClass k where
type AssociatedType k :: *
Is there a way of requiring AssociatedType be of class Eq, say?
This works with -XFlexibleContexts:
class Eq (AssociatedType k) = MyClass k where
type AssociatedType k :: *
Roman
On 15/12/2009, at 06:53, Brad Larsen wrote:
On another note, does this (or perhaps better phrased, will this) bug
also affect Data Parallel Haskell?
Luckily, no. DPH represents arrays of user-defined types by unboxed arrays
(that's essentially what the vectoriser does). It does use boxed
On 28/11/2009, at 07:45, Henning Thielemann wrote:
Is there also a darcs repository?
Yes, http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~rl/code/darcs/NoSlow.
Roman
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On 18/11/2009, at 21:10, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Yes I think it can, although you are right to point out that I said nothing
about type inference. One minor thing is that you've misunderstood the
proposal a bit. It ONLY springs into action when there's a dot. So you'd
have to write
Simon, have you given any thought to how this interacts with type system
extensions, in particular with GADTs and type families? The proposal relies on
being able to find the type of a term but it's not entirely clear to me what
that means. Here is an example:
foo :: F Int - Int
foo :: Int -
On 16/11/2009, at 22:46, Alexey Khudyakov wrote:
Problems begin when you need non-contiguous block. Easiest way to so
is indexing.
FWIW, this operation is called backpermute and is probably exported as bpermute
in uvector.
Roman
___
Haskell-Cafe
On 05/11/2009, at 04:01, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
oh, can we stop saying about shootout? if you want to see speed of
pure haskell code, look at papers about fast arrays/strings - their
authors have measured that lazy lists are hundreds times slower than
idiomatic C code. is use of lazy lists
On 04/11/2009, at 13:23, Daniel Peebles wrote:
In the presence of fusion (as is the case in uvector), it's hard to
give meaningful time complexities for operations as they depend on
what operations they are paired with. We need to think of a better way
to express this behavior in the
On 04/11/2009, at 13:12, brian wrote:
indexU :: UA e = UArr e - Int - e
O(n). indexU extracts an element out of an immutable unboxed array.
This is a typo (unless Don inserted a nop loop into the original DPH
code).
Roman
___
Haskell-Cafe
On 04/11/2009, at 13:35, wren ng thornton wrote:
Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
On 04/11/2009, at 13:23, Daniel Peebles wrote:
In the presence of fusion (as is the case in uvector), it's hard to
give meaningful time complexities for operations as they depend on
what operations they are paired
On 04/11/2009, at 14:07, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
Actually, it's not a typo. If you look at the source, what you'll
see is
indexU arr n = indexS (streamU arr) n
I suspect it gets rewritten back to the O(1) version somewhere after
is has had a chance to fuse. If not, then it's a bug. In
On 04/11/2009, at 14:38, Philippos Apolinarius wrote:
And here comes the reason for writing this article. In the previous
version of the Gauss elimination algorithm, I have imported
Data.Array.IO. I also wrote a version of the program that imports
Data.Array.ST. The problem is that I
On 12/05/2009, at 14:45, Reiner Pope wrote:
The Stream datatype seems to be much better suited to representing
loops than the list datatype is. So, instead of programming with the
lists, why don't we just use the Stream datatype directly?
I think the main reason is that streams don't store
On 09/03/2009, at 11:47, Claus Reinke wrote:
Btw, have any of the Haskell array optimization researchers
considered fixpoints yet?
This, for instance, is a very nice paper:
http://www.pllab.riec.tohoku.ac.jp/~ohori/research/OhoriSasanoPOPL07.pdf
However, in the context of high-performance
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
