--- Aaron Denney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are we off-topic for this mailing-list?
I'd just like to respond to this:
Anyways, your shootout, your hard work, your rules,
but having rulings on what's acceptable be easier to
find would be nice.
People here have made the effort to develop
Aaron Denney wrote:
On 2006-01-06, Chris Kuklewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One could make an MVar version which did not use a meeting thread, and I
welcome someone to do that. I have no proof that the current solution
is really the fastest architecture.
I've done so -- on my machine it's
--- Aaron Denney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-01-11, Chris Kuklewicz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Denney wrote:
The old version with the meeting place thread has
been disqualified
(along with Erlang submissions).
Is this reasoning explained and clarified anywhere,
or did they
--- Aaron Denney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The forums there seem to be useless because...?
Because I can't find anything relevant (and I did
look). I can't even
tell where such an announcement would have been
made.
Ah! Useful for finding an announcement - maybe not.
otoh the forums do
Hello Simon,
Friday, January 06, 2006, 7:11:41 PM, you wrote:
I'm not keen on using explicit unboxed values in these benchmarks, since
it looks so ugly. In most cases you can convince GHC to do the unboxing
for you, and I'm pretty sure it should be the case here too. Just use
ordinary Ints.
Nice comment.
Aaron Denney wrote:
On 2006-01-06, Chris Kuklewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/ChameneosEntry
I note that
# Like the erlang entry, this uses a separate thread to match up two
# chameneos in the meeting room.
Which seems to me to be against
haskell:
Simon Marlow wrote:
Hi Chris,
Rather than try to explain what I'm going on about, I decided to tweak
the code a bit myself. My version is about 10% faster than yours, and
doesn't use any explicit unboxery. I've put it in the wiki after your
version.
