Hi Dan,
I wasn't aware of the third option, at least this particular variant of the
*as* pattern. I've only seen it like this
f s@(x:xs) = ...
i.e., outside the parens.
The cost question arose as I was deciding which way to write it.
Thanks,
Michael
--- On Fri, 9/10/10, Dan Doel <dan.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Dan Doel <dan.d...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Cost: (:) vs head
To: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Cc: "michael rice" <nowg...@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, September 10, 2010, 11:29 PM
On Friday 10 September 2010 11:13:50 pm michael rice wrote:
> Which of these would be more costly for a long list?
>
> f :: [Int] -> [Int]
> f [x] = [x]
> f (x:xs) = x + (head xs) : f xs
>
> f :: [Int] -> [Int]
>
> f [x] = [x]
> f (x:y:xs) = x + y : f (y:xs)
Another option would be:
f [x] = [x]
f (x:xs@(y:_)) = (x + y) : f xs
However, I believe I've done tests in the past, and your second example
generates the same code when optimizations are on (that is, it doesn't build a
new y:xs, but reuses the existing one), and that should perform the same as
your first implementation.
All that said, I'm not sure you'd be able to see the difference anyway.
-- Dan
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
