Mmh, true, for polymorphic definitions there is not a lot to see. This
probably diminishes the applicability of a strictness analysis quite a
bit. Maybe it is entirely useless at this point.
It would make more sense after whole-program optimization. Ghc does not
have this, I heard the Intel Research Compiler does such things.
This is becoming a very high-hanging fruit...
--Andreas
On 24.07.2013 20:22, Edward Kmett wrote:
You only have a Num constraint when type checking that code:
(+) :: Num a => a -> a -> a
For better or worse, you don't get strictness in the type signatures in
Haskell.
We do not separate codata from data here.
Without knowing about the particular instance of Num and even the
direction of recursion on (+) there is no information for such a
strictness analyzer to work with.
many :: Alternative m => m a -> m [a]
many p = ps where
ps = (:) <$> p <*> ps
<|> pure []
is another perfectly cromulent example of "value" recursion, and one
that is far nearer and dearer to my heart and is similarly opaque to any
such analysis.
-Edward
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Andreas Abel <andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de
<mailto:andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de>> wrote:
Sure. I have not looked a concrete strictness analyses, but I
expect they would treat Conat differently than Integer. In particular,
x does *not* appear strictly in S x
if S is a lazy constructor.
On 22.07.13 4:54 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:
let x = x +1
is perfectly cromulent when x is sufficiently lazy, e.g. in the
one point compactification of the naturals:
data Conat = S Conat | Z
There it represents infinity with proper sharing.
-Edward
On Jul 22, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Andreas Abel
<andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de <mailto:andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de>> wrote:
On 22.07.2013 10:50, MigMit wrote:
On Jul 22, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Andreas Abel
<andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de <mailto:andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de>>
wrote:
On 20.07.13 9:36 PM, Evan Laforge wrote:
However, I'm also not agitating for a
non-recursive let, I think
that ship has sailed. Besides, if it were added
people would
start wondering about non-recursive where, and
it would introduce
an exception to haskell's pretty consistently
order-independent
declaration style.
For functions, recursive-by-default let makes sense.
But for
*values*, intended recursion is rather the
exception. It is useful
for infinite lists and the like. For values of
atomic type like
Int or Bool, recursive let is a bug.
It seems hard to distinguish between them. What about
values that
contain functions, like data T = T Int (Int -> Int)?
What about
polymorphic values, that could be functions and could be
not?
I agree. It cannot be implemented like that. A thing that
could be implemented is that
let x = e
is an error if x appears strictly in e. In practice, this
could catch some unintended cases of recursion like
let x = x +1
, but not all of them.
Cheers,
Andreas
--
Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch.
Theoretical Computer Science, University of Munich
Oettingenstr. 67, D-80538 Munich, GERMANY
andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de <mailto:andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de>
http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~__abel/
<http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~abel/>
_________________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org <mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org>
http://www.haskell.org/__mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe>
--
Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch.
Theoretical Computer Science, University of Munich
Oettingenstr. 67, D-80538 Munich, GERMANY
andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de <mailto:andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de>
http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~__abel/ <http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~abel/>
--
Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch.
Theoretical Computer Science, University of Munich
Oettingenstr. 67, D-80538 Munich, GERMANY
andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de
http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~abel/
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
