At Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:21:42 +0800,
John Lato wrote:
Speaking as the ListLike maintainer, I'd like this too. But it's difficult to
do so without sacrificing performance. In some cases, sacrificing *a lot* of
performance. So they have to be class members.
However, there's no reason
At Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:26:01 +,
Francesco Mazzoli wrote:
Interesting. Are we sure that we can't convince GHC to inline the functions
with enough pragmas?
Inline and SPECIALIZE :).
Francesco.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
From: Francesco Mazzoli f...@mazzo.li
At Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:16:30 +0100,
Alberto G. Corona wrote:
There is a ListLike package, which does this nice abstraction. but I
don't
know if it is ready for and/or enough complete for serious usage. I?m
thinking into using it for the same
On 10 November 2012 17:57, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
It better communicates intent. A e.g. lazy byte string can be used for two
separate things:
* to model a stream of bytes, or
* to avoid costs due to concatenating strings.
By using a strict byte string you make it clear
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
As for type classes, I don't think we use them enough. Perhaps because
Haskell wasn't developed as an engineering language, some good software
engineering principles (code against an interface, not a concrete
Andrew:
There is a ListLike package, which does this nice abstraction. but
I don't know if it is ready for and/or enough complete for serious usage.
I´m thinking into using it for the same reasons.
Anyone has some experiences to share about it?
2012/11/10 Andrew Pennebaker
At Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:16:30 +0100,
Alberto G. Corona wrote:
There is a ListLike package, which does this nice abstraction. but I don't
know if it is ready for and/or enough complete for serious usage. I´m
thinking into using it for the same reasons.
Anyone has some experiences to share
On 10 November 2012 04:00, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
As for type classes, I don't think we use them enough. Perhaps because
Haskell wasn't developed as an engineering language, some good software
engineering principles (code against an interface, not a concrete
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
* Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com [2012-11-09 19:00:04-0800]
As a community we should primary use strict ByteStrings and Texts. There
are uses for the lazy variants (i.e. they are sometimes more efficient),
but in
Frequently when I'm coding in Haskell, the crux of my problem is converting
between all the stupid string formats.
You've got String, ByteString, Lazy ByteString, Text, [Word], and on and
on... I have to constantly lookup how to convert between them, and the
overloaded strings GHC directive
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Andrew Pennebaker
andrew.penneba...@gmail.com wrote:
Frequently when I'm coding in Haskell, the crux of my problem is
converting between all the stupid string formats.
You've got String, ByteString, Lazy ByteString, Text, [Word], and on and
on...
* Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com [2012-11-09 19:00:04-0800]
As a community we should primary use strict ByteStrings and Texts. There
are uses for the lazy variants (i.e. they are sometimes more efficient),
but in general the strict versions should be preferred.
I'm fairly surprised by
12 matches
Mail list logo
