Hi Bas,
I'm not sure the unpacking is absolutely necessary. It might be worth
to give it a try with not-unpacked strict chunks. In some of my
ByteString builder experiments, I even got better performance by not
unpacking the ByteStrings in some of the intermediate data structures.
My gut feeling
Hi Duncan,
I just wanted to thank you and all the other guys pushing Hackage 2
towards a public release. I just tested the
http://hackage.factisresearch.com/
instance and it's blazingly fast. Cool stuff! The reverse dependencies
are also very useful. I know that sending patches instead of
Hi John,
I've used Haskell and GHC to solve particular real life application. 4
tools were developed and their function is almost the same - they
modify textual input according to patterns found in the text. Thus, it
Hmm, modification can be a problem for ByteStrings, since it entails
2011/6/6 Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.com:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Yitzchak Gale g...@sefer.org wrote:
If behind the scenes the concat is copying directly from slices of the
original
input, then no, in principle we're not saving much then.
I thought there were *two* copies going
2011/6/7 Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.com:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Simon Meier iridc...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would you need 'unsafePerformIO'. You can scrutinise the 'PS'
constructors of the slice without dropping down to IO.
True. Oops :-)
Using a Builder for concatentation
2011/5/26 Jacek Generowicz jacek.generow...@cern.ch:
On 2011 May 26, at 11:16, Christopher Done wrote:
On 26 May 2011 10:45, Jacek Generowicz jacek.generow...@cern.ch wrote:
What is the Haskell approach to efficient comparison and lookup of
objects
by their identity?
Often you just
2011/5/25 Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com:
On 25 May 2011 22:17, Stephen Tetley stephen.tet...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ivan
Forks are good, no?
The Parsec experience has suggested to me at least, that new author's
capping another author's work by bumping up to a major version,
2011/5/19 Antoine Latter aslat...@gmail.com:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Simon Meier iridc...@gmail.com wrote:
The core problem that drove me towards this solution is the abundance
of different IntX and WordX types. Each of them requiring a separate
Write for big-endian, little-endian
2011/5/20 Bas van Dijk v.dijk@gmail.com:
On 19 May 2011 10:53, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
Long term we'd like to switch bytestring over
from ForeignPtr to ByteArray#, if possible. There are currently some
technical obstacles to such a switch
BTW I'm working with Roman
2011/5/20 Henning Thielemann schlepp...@henning-thielemann.de:
Simon Meier schrieb:
There are many providers of Writes. Each bounded-length-encoding of a
standard Haskell value is likely to have a corresponding Write. For
example, encoding an Int32 as a big-endian, little-endian, and
host
2011/5/20 Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com:
Hi Simon,
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Simon Meier iridc...@gmail.com wrote:
Write achieves this separation, but it has some costs which I'm not
entirely comfortable with.
First, it leads to lots of API duplication. For every type (e.g
Hi Antoine, thanks for your feedback.
2011/5/18 Antoine Latter aslat...@gmail.com:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Simon Meier iridc...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Haskell-Cafe,
There are many providers of Writes. Each bounded-length-encoding of a
standard Haskell value is likely to have
Hi Johan,
thanks for the extensive and motivating feedback.
2011/5/19 Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Simon Meier iridc...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, one of my current goals with this work is to polish it such
that it can be integrated into the 'bytestring
Hello Haskell-Cafe,
my main question is whether requiring FlexibleInstances is a problem
for code that aims to become part of the Haskell platform. The
following explanation gives the context for this question.
As some of you may know the blaze-builder library is now used in quite
a few places.
14 matches
Mail list logo
