If this is accurate, why would anyone want to use the lazy State?
To answer my own question, if you want a monad stack to produce lazy
output. E.g. if you want to lazily produce data but also have
exceptions and state:
ErrorT e (LazyWriterT w (LazyStateT s Identity))
AFAIK this is the only
Any time you see something inexplicable like lots of time being attributed
to something simple like get, it means that something isn't strict enough
and get is having to force a bunch of lazy evaluations to do its job.
Since you're using State.Strict but lift-ing to get there, I'd first look
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/18/10 21:37 , Evan Laforge wrote:
For instance, currently I have the top consumer of both time and alloc
as 'get', which is 'lift . Monad.State.Strict.get'. Of course it
occurs in a million places in the complete profile, along with
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
I'm still quite
surprised that there's no tool anywhere which will trivially print out the
reduction sequence for executing an expression. You'd think this would be
laughably easy, and yet nobody has done it yet.
On Saturday 16 October 2010 7:04:23 pm Ben Millwood wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
I'm still quite
surprised that there's no tool anywhere which will trivially print out
the reduction sequence for executing an expression. You'd
On 10/16/10 8:25 PM, Dan Doel wrote:
On Saturday 16 October 2010 7:04:23 pm Ben Millwood wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
I'm still quite
surprised that there's no tool anywhere which will trivially print out
the reduction sequence for executing an expression.
On 17 October 2010 11:25, Dan Doel dan.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 16 October 2010 7:04:23 pm Ben Millwood wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
I'm still quite
surprised that there's no tool anywhere which will trivially print out
http://k1024.org/~iusty/papers/icfp10-haskell-reagent.pdf
I'm sure some of you have seen this already. For those who lack the time
or inclination to read through the (six) pages of this report, here's
the summary...
We [i.e., the report authors] took a production Python system and
rewrote
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 09:28:09PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
http://k1024.org/~iusty/papers/icfp10-haskell-reagent.pdf
I'm sure some of you have seen this already. For those who lack the
time or inclination to read through the (six) pages of this report,
here's the summary...
Nice
On 15/10/2010 10:43 PM, Iustin Pop wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 09:28:09PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
http://k1024.org/~iusty/papers/icfp10-haskell-reagent.pdf
I'm sure some of you have seen this already. For those who lack the
time or inclination to read through the (six) pages of this
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:08:14PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
On 15/10/2010 10:43 PM, Iustin Pop wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 09:28:09PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
I'm surprised about the profiler. They seem really, really impressed
with it. Which is interesting to me, since I can never
On 15/10/2010 11:18 PM, Iustin Pop wrote:
I know about zipWith. And if the profile tells me I spend too much time
in zipWith, it means a few things:
- zipWith might have to force evaluation of the results, hence the
incorrect attribution of costs
- if even after that zipWith is the culprit,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/10 16:28 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
I'm surprised about the profiler. They seem really, really impressed with
it. Which is interesting to me, since I can never seen to get anything
sensible out of it. It always seems to claim that my program
13 matches
Mail list logo
