Björn Bringert wrote:
Cale Gibbard wrote:
On 22/10/06, Chad Scherrer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I had posted this question a while back, but I think it was in the
middle of another discussion, and I never did get a reply. Do we
really need both Control.Parallel.Strategies.rnf and deepSeq?
Cale Gibbard wrote:
On 22/10/06, Chad Scherrer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I had posted this question a while back, but I think it was in the
middle of another discussion, and I never did get a reply. Do we
really need both Control.Parallel.Strategies.rnf and deepSeq? Should
we not always
Hello Cale,
Monday, October 23, 2006, 7:19:14 AM, you wrote:
Speaking of boilerplate and the scrapping thereof, Data.Generics could
theoretically also be used to write a relatively generic rnf/deepSeq,
but in my attempts, it seems to be much much slower than using a
specific normal form
Hi,
I had posted this question a while back, but I think it was in the
middle of another discussion, and I never did get a reply. Do we
really need both Control.Parallel.Strategies.rnf and deepSeq? Should
we not always have
x `deepSeq` y == rnf x `seq` y
?
Maybe there's a distinction I'm
On 22/10/06, Chad Scherrer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I had posted this question a while back, but I think it was in the
middle of another discussion, and I never did get a reply. Do we
really need both Control.Parallel.Strategies.rnf and deepSeq? Should
we not always have
x `deepSeq` y ==
Interesting, I hadn't thought of the SYB approach. I still need to get
through those papers. Actually, I wonder if this idea would help with
something else I was looking into. It seems like it might occasionally
be useful to have a monad that is the identity, except that it forces
evaluation as
Now and again I see references to deepSeq, and I've never understood
how this could be any different than using rnf from
Control.Parallel.Strategies. Is there really any difference? When is
it better to use one or the other?
Thanks,
--
Chad Scherrer
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like
