On 25/04/2009, at 23:39, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 11:19:15PM +1000, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
IMO, if people use unboxed values too much it's because the rest of
language doesn't offer them enough tools to achieve what they want.
If
that's the case (and I sometimes feel that it is), the better
solution
would be to offer those tool, IMO. In DPH, I use them mostly to
specify strictness and to ensure that some values will indeed be
unboxed in the presence of higher-order functions. If there was a
different way of expressing this, I would use that in a heartbeat.
Hard to say without an example, but it sounds like bang patterns
should
be able to do this. Or even just strictness analysis.
Suppose I have
foo :: (Int# -> Int#) -> Array Int -> Array Int
I don't see a good way of getting this semantics without using unboxed
types.
Roman
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
Cvs-ghc@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
