On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 20:22 -0600, Nicolas Frisby wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007 4:16 PM, Duncan Coutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 13:39 -0800, Don Stewart wrote:
nicolas.frisby:
*snip*
1) The fact that serialisation is fully strict for 32760 bytes but
not
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 20:06 -0600, Nicolas Frisby wrote:
In light of this discussion, I think the fully spine-strict list
instance does more good than bad argument is starting to sound like a
premature optimization. Consequently, using a newtype to treat the
necessarily lazy instances as
I've got a first draft with the newtype and just an instance for list.
If you'd prefer fewer questions, please let me know ;)
0) I've cabalised it (lazy-binary), but I don't have anywhere to host it.
Would it be appropriate to host on darcs.haskell.org or HackageDB (yet?).
Suggestions?
1)
nicolas.frisby:
I've got a first draft with the newtype and just an instance for list.
If you'd prefer fewer questions, please let me know ;)
0) I've cabalised it (lazy-binary), but I don't have anywhere to host
it. Would it be appropriate to host on [1]darcs.haskell.org or
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 13:39 -0800, Don Stewart wrote:
nicolas.frisby:
I've got a first draft with the newtype and just an instance for list.
If you'd prefer fewer questions, please let me know ;)
0) I've cabalised it (lazy-binary), but I don't have anywhere to host
it.
In light of this discussion, I think the fully spine-strict list instance
does more good than bad argument is starting to sound like a premature
optimization. Consequently, using a newtype to treat the necessarily lazy
instances as special cases is an inappropriate bandaid.
My current opinion: If
On Nov 19, 2007 4:16 PM, Duncan Coutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 13:39 -0800, Don Stewart wrote:
nicolas.frisby:
*snip*
1) The fact that serialisation is fully strict for 32760 bytes but not
for
32761 makes the direct application of strictCheck
nicolas.frisby:
I've noticed a few posts on the cafe, including my own experience,
where the spine-strictness of the Binary instance for lists caused
some confusion. I'd like to suggest an approach to preventing this
confusion in the future, or at least making it easier to resolve.
Having
dons:
nicolas.frisby:
I've noticed a few posts on the cafe, including my own experience,
where the spine-strictness of the Binary instance for lists caused
some confusion. I'd like to suggest an approach to preventing this
confusion in the future, or at least making it easier to resolve.
I've noticed a few posts on the cafe, including my own experience,
where the spine-strictness of the Binary instance for lists caused
some confusion. I'd like to suggest an approach to preventing this
confusion in the future, or at least making it easier to resolve.
Having decided that it is
10 matches
Mail list logo
