On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 20:36 +0200, Marc Weber wrote: > Is there somethinig corresponding to Num concering lists? > > I mean there is + - /.. defined. + - are not type specific (Int, Double) > neither is : [1,2] notation to Elements.. But what about different > implementatins of lists? (linked lists? hash lists? array with index? > > In other words: why not overload (:) ?
It might be nice to be able to use (:) to deconstruct other list like representations however the other list representations cannot efficiently support construction with (:). For example for the array-with-an-index representation it is an O(n) operation. > Then it would be possible to use "blah" for fast packed strings, too An easier way of doing that might be to define literal strings to desugar into a function application much like numeric literals desugar into applications of fromIntegral. At the moment we can at least get the performance benefit of not converting via a list representation using GHC rules. So if you write: pack "blah" it gets transformed into: packAddr "blah"# where that literal string is just the address of a constant C string. Duncan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
