Thank you, guys, i somehow got the impression that there has to be some meaning to this. It seemed unprobable, but why would anybody write it like that if there weren't some reason to it ? ;-)))
Have a nice holidays, btw. Cheers, wman. On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Duncan Coutts <duncan.cou...@worc.ox.ac.uk>wrote: > On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 05:21 +0100, wman wrote: > > I encountered the following code : > > > > -- B == Data.ByteString ; L == Data.ByteString.Lazy > > contents' = B.intercalate B.empty $ L.toChunks contents > > > > with a previously unencountered function intercalate. A quick google > > query later i knew that it's just intersperse & concat nicely bundled > > and started wondering why anybody would do this, as simple > > > > contents' = B.concat $ L.toChunks contents > > > > would do (probably nearly) the same. The only thing I am able to come > > up with is that it somehow helps streamline the memory usage (if it > > has some meaning). > > > > Is there some reason to use intercalate <empty> <list> instead of > > concat <list> (probably when dealing with non-lazy bytestrings) ? > > I cannot see any advantage. I would be extremely surprised if the more > obscure version was faster. > > Duncan > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
