* Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com [2011-11-17 21:21:47-0800]
Hi all,
Data.Map is getting split into Data.Map.Lazy and Data.Map.Strict (with
Data.Map re-exporting the lazy API). I want to better document the
strictness properties of the two new modules. Right now the
documentation for
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
On 18 November 2011 06:44, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
Here are some examples:
insertWith (+) k undefined m == undefined
delete undefined m == undefined
map (\ v - undefined) == undefined
mapKeys (\ k - undefined) == undefined
Any ideas for further
On 18/11/11 06:44, Johan Tibell wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Johan Tibelljohan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not entirely happy with this formulation. I'm looking for
something that's clear (i.e. precise and concise, without leaving out
important information), assuming that the reader
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
Is it mentioned anywhere that Map is spine-strict?
It's not and we should probably mention it.
I was mulling this over last night. My initial thought was that it
shouldn't matter as long as the algorithmic complexity of
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy r...@cse.unsw.edu.au
wrote:
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
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Twan van Laarhoven twa...@gmail.com wrote:
* key and value function arguments passed to functions are
evaluated to WHNF before the function body is evaluated, and
function arguments passed to functions sounds a bit redundant. Either say
arguments passed to
Here's an attempt at an improved version:
Strictness properties
=
This module satisfies the following properties:
1. Key and value arguments are evaluated to WHNF;
2. Keys and values are evaluated to WHNF before they are stored in
the map.
Here are some examples that
* Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com [2011-11-18 08:06:29-0800]
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
Is it mentioned anywhere that Map is spine-strict?
It's not and we should probably mention it.
Hm. Perhaps I'm missing something, but
data Map k a =
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:16, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
* Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com [2011-11-18 08:06:29-0800]
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info
wrote:
Is it mentioned anywhere that Map is spine-strict?
It's not and we should
* Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com [2011-11-18 12:20:33-0500]
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:16, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
* Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com [2011-11-18 08:06:29-0800]
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info
wrote:
Is it
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
* Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com [2011-11-18 08:06:29-0800]
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
Is it mentioned anywhere that Map is spine-strict?
It's not and we should
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:58:41 +0100, Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com wrote:
Any ideas for further improvements?
I feel like there should be a canonical what is WHNF page on
haskell.org that docs like this can link to. Namely, what it is
theoretically, what that means for various examples of
Hi all,
Data.Map is getting split into Data.Map.Lazy and Data.Map.Strict (with
Data.Map re-exporting the lazy API). I want to better document the
strictness properties of the two new modules. Right now the
documentation for Data.Map.Strict reads:
Strictness properties
=
*
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not entirely happy with this formulation. I'm looking for
something that's clear (i.e. precise and concise, without leaving out
important information), assuming that the reader already knows how
lazy evaluation
On 18 November 2011 16:44, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not entirely happy with this formulation. I'm looking for
something that's clear (i.e. precise and concise, without leaving out
important
Any ideas for further improvements?
I feel like there should be a canonical what is WHNF page on
haskell.org that docs like this can link to. Namely, what it is
theoretically, what that means for various examples of thunks (i.e.
show how a sample graph would get reduced), and what that means
17 matches
Mail list logo
