do torrents exist for 6.8.1? my experience is that people will use
torrents if they are offered and they really do lift the pressure from
the origin domain (haskell.org)
pgpTQvjxj07Kq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell
Hello,
I need help... I am having trouble with rose trees.
1
2 3 4
5 6 7 8910 11
That is the rose tree that I seek.
Data
Isaac Gouy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ketil Malde wrote:
>> [LOC vs gz as a program complexity metric]
> Do either of those make sense as a "program /complexity/ metric"?
Sorry, bad choice of words on my part.
-k
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
_
On Nov 3, 2007, at 5:34 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
(BTW, anybody have any clue what's happening with stream fusion? I
remember reading the paper saying "hey, this is how it works and
it's cool and we're going to try to replace the whole list library
with new stream implementations", but that's
Hi Nicholas,
> compileTimeEval :: Data a => a -> ExpQ
> compileTimeEval = return . toExp
> You're telling me all that horrendous pain in implementing toExp and
it already exists?!?
Yes unfortunately, compileTimeEval already exists in TH, it's called lift
compileTimeEval :: Lift a => a -> ExpQ
On Nov 3, 2007 5:00 AM, Ryan Dickie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lossless File compression, AKA entropy coding, attempts to maximize the
> amount of information per bit (or byte) to be as close to the entropy as
> possible. Basically, gzip is measuring (approximating) the amount of
> "information"
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Duncan Coutts wrote:
Yes, the semantics are different. ByteString is stricter. In some
circumstances you could discover that some list is being used
sufficiently strictly (spine and element strict) that you could do a
representation change to use strict arrays. It is somethi
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
because program that require 8mb stack, will probably require 8gb when
processing more data :)
So.. what? You could say the same about heap, which was rather the point
of the earlier thread.
Regards
--
Adrian Hey
___
Haskell-
Hello Abhay,
Saturday, November 3, 2007, 1:46:07 PM, you wrote:
> Why is there a limitation on the stack size in GHC?
because program that require 8mb stack, will probably require 8gb when
processing more data :)
> Can we have an RTS flag allowing unlimited stack size?
-K2000m, afair
--
B
Hello,
> Why is there a limitation on the stack size in GHC? Like heap where we
> can limit the size by -M RTS option but the default is unlimited, why
> not let the program use as big a stack as required? If not by default,
> then by a separate option?
>
> Some of the functions that we write in
Hello all,
Why is there a limitation on the stack size in GHC? Like heap where we can
limit the size by -M RTS option but the default is unlimited, why not let
the program use as big a stack as required? If not by default, then by a
separate option?
Some of the functions that we write in recursiv
Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 21:35 +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Well OK, maybe I was a little vague. Let me be a bit more specific...
If you do text processing using ByteString rather than String, you get
dramatically better performance in time and space. For me, this raises a
12 matches
Mail list logo
