2011/2/15 Gábor Lehel illiss...@gmail.com:
This is a semi-related question I've been meaning to ask at some
point: I suppose this also means it's not possible to write a class,
write some rules for the class, and then have the rules be applied to
every instance? (I.e. you'd have to write them
...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Max Bolingbroke
| Sent: 15 February 2011 09:08
| To: Gábor Lehel
| Cc: Haskell Cafe
| Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] rewrite rules to specialize function according to
| type class?
|
| 2011/2/15 Gábor Lehel illiss...@gmail.com:
| This is a semi-related question I've been
Hello,
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:
Thanks for this clarification, I had wondered about this for a while. I
think it would also be nice to mention
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 surprising, but I can see the
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
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
It might work with the
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
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, after all.
Well, yes,
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,
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, and there is no way to
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,
Hi all,
I am trying to get a GHC rewrite rule that specialises a function
according to the type of the argument of the function. Does anybody know
whether it is possible to do that not with a concrete type but rather a
type class?
Consider the following example:
class A a where
toInt
On 14 February 2011 21:43, Patrick Bahr pa...@arcor.de wrote:
Am I doing something wrong or is it not possible for GHC to dispatch a rule
according to type class constraints?
As you have discovered this is not possible. You can write the rule
for as many *particular* types as you like, but you
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Max Bolingbroke
batterseapo...@hotmail.com wrote:
On 14 February 2011 21:43, Patrick Bahr pa...@arcor.de wrote:
Am I doing something wrong or is it not possible for GHC to dispatch a rule
according to type class constraints?
As you have discovered this is not
14 matches
Mail list logo
