Am Mittwoch, 22. März 2006 14:19 schrieb Bulat Ziganshin:
Hello Wolfgang,
you said WHAT you think but not said WHY? my motivation is to be able
to use myriads of already implemented algorithms on new datatypes
I think, I already tried to explain why I think the way I think in an earlier
Hello Wolfgang,
Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 1:29:24 AM, you wrote:
you said WHAT you think but not said WHY? my motivation is to be able
to use myriads of already implemented algorithms on new datatypes
as i said, shebang patterns allow only to specify that IMPLEMENTATION
of some function is
On 3/22/06, Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ghc uses unboxed tuples just for such sort of optimizations. instead
of returning possibly-unevaluated pair with possibly-unevaluated
elements it just return, say, two doubles in registers - a huge win
I have no doubt of this. My comment
John Meacham wrote:
ghc's strictness analyzer is pretty darn good, If
something is subtle enough for the compiler not to catch it, then the
programmer probably won't right off the bat either.
Even the best strictness analyzer can't determine that a function is strict
when it really isn't. The
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Taral wrote:
T I don't see that more optimization follows from the availability
T of information regarding the strictness of a function result's
T subcomponents.
ghc uses unboxed tuples just for such sort of optimizations. instead
of returning possibly-unevaluated pair
! The trouble is that for certain types of
programs (eg, numeric intensive ones), you absolutely need that
optimisation to happen. Without strict tuples, this means, you have to
dump the intermediate code of the compiler and inspect it by hand to see
whether the optimisation happens. If not, you have
On 3/22/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It does happen...sometimes! The trouble is that for certain types of
programs (eg, numeric intensive ones), you absolutely need that
optimisation to happen. Without strict tuples, this means, you have to
dump the intermediate code
On 21 March 2006 03:10, John Meacham wrote:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 09:39:41AM -0500, Manuel M T Chakravarty
wrote:
Apart from the syntactic issues, does anybody else support the idea
of strict tuples as proposed? I just want to know whether I am
alone on this before putting it on the wiki
On 3/21/06, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By all means have strict tuples in a library somewhere.They don't needto have special syntax.I have a module Data.Pair which provides pairs with different strictness properties. Perhaps it can be used as a startingpoint.
Cheers,/Josef
John Meacham:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 09:39:41AM -0500, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Apart from the syntactic issues, does anybody else support the idea of
strict tuples as proposed? I just want to know whether I am alone on
this before putting it on the wiki.
I have a few issues
to intimatly
know whether it might or might not have bottoms in it, then chances are
it is something you want a custom data type for anyway. strict tuples
would not really express intent any more and without some sort of
subtyping mechanism the hassle of dealing with them would greatly
outweigh
Am Dienstag, 21. März 2006 11:28 schrieb Bulat Ziganshin:
[...]
as i said, shebang patterns allow only to specify that IMPLEMENTATION
of some function is strict. this helps only when this function are
called directly. they can't help when function is passed as parameter
or enclosed in data
On 3/18/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, the caller could invoke addmul using a bang patterns, as in
let ( !s, !p ) = addmul x y
in ...
but that's quite different to statically knowing (from the type) that
the two results of addmul will already be
On 19 March 2006 02:35, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Loosely related to Ticket #76 (Bang Patterns) is the question of
whether we want the language to include strict tuples. It is related
to bang patterns, because its sole motivation is to simplify enforcing
strictness for some computations
Hello Simon,
Monday, March 20, 2006, 1:47:52 PM, you wrote:
i've proposed to allow adding strict mark to any type constructors and
type constructor parameters so that finally we can define any data
structure that can be defined in strict languages. in particular:
type StrictPair a b = !(,)
On 20 March 2006 12:26, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
2) to allow changing of strictness inside existing ADTs, i propose
to copy strictness annotations on type arguments to the type
declaration bodies:
data List a = Nil | Cons (List a) a
type StrictElements a = List !a
is equal to the:
data
On 3/20/06, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/19/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Loosely related to Ticket #76 (Bang Patterns) is the question of whether
we want the language to include strict tuples. It is related to bang
patterns, because its sole
indexing.
Apart from the syntactic issues, does anybody else support the idea of
strict tuples as proposed? I just want to know whether I am alone on
this before putting it on the wiki.
Manuel
On 19 March 2006 02:35, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Loosely related to Ticket #76 (Bang Patterns
Sebastian Sylvan:
On 3/19/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Loosely related to Ticket #76 (Bang Patterns) is the question of whether
we want the language to include strict tuples. It is related to bang
patterns, because its sole motivation is to simplify enforcing
On 3/20/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sebastian Sylvan:
On 3/19/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Loosely related to Ticket #76 (Bang Patterns) is the question of whether
we want the language to include strict tuples. It is related to bang
Am Sonntag, 19. März 2006 15:53 schrieb Bulat Ziganshin:
Hello Manuel,
Sunday, March 19, 2006, 5:35:12 AM, you wrote:
MMTC PS: IIRC Clean supports strict tuples.
i've proposed to allow adding strict mark to any type constructors and
type constructor parameters so that finally we can define
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 09:39:41AM -0500, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Apart from the syntactic issues, does anybody else support the idea of
strict tuples as proposed? I just want to know whether I am alone on
this before putting it on the wiki.
I have a few issues though, not entirely easy
Loosely related to Ticket #76 (Bang Patterns) is the question of whether
we want the language to include strict tuples. It is related to bang
patterns, because its sole motivation is to simplify enforcing
strictness for some computations. Its about empowering the programmer
to choose between
23 matches
Mail list logo
