I've wondered if it's faster to insert many keys by successive
insertion, or by building another map and then unioning, and likewise
with deletion. I eventually decided on successive, thinking a log n
build + merge is going to be slower than a m*log n for successive
insertion. So I wound up with:
On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 23:24 +0100, Bas van Dijk wrote:
> Some nitpicking:
>
> * In the instance:
>
> instance GDeepSeq U1 where grnf _ = ()
>
> I think it makes sense to pattern match on the U1 constructor, as in:
> grnf U1 = ().
>
> I haven't checked if that's necessary but my fear is that ass
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 15:28 +0100, Andres Löh wrote:
> Hi.
>
> >> I don't understand what's going on here. Instances for V1 should of
> >> course be defined if they can be! And in this case, a V1 instance
> >> makes sense and should be defined. The definition itself doesn't
> >> matter, as it'll n
I'm not familiar with Multiplate either, but presumably you can
descend into the decl - collect the bound vars, then descend into the
body expr.
> Let <$> decl child d <*> expr child e
This seems like a common traversal that Strafunski would handle, and
with Multiplate being a competitor / succe
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 01:18:22PM -0800, Matt Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm reading the haskellwiki article on multiplate. Is it possible to
> modify the getVariablesPlate example to return the free variables?
> One idea I had is to store an environment in a reader monad, and use
> local to upda
As promised, here are the (live-updating) results. The surveys will remain
open, keep em coming...
hledger:
Details:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au47MrJax8HpdHVGUHBXRUhRNWF3Y2RsZGVHNmlFLWc#gid=3
Summary:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/gform?key=0Au47MrJax8HpdHVGUHBXRUhRNWF
Hi.
>> I don't understand what's going on here. Instances for V1 should of
>> course be defined if they can be! And in this case, a V1 instance
>> makes sense and should be defined. The definition itself doesn't
>> matter, as it'll never be executed.
>
>
> The definition certainly matters:
[...]
Hi Andres,
2012/2/24 Andres Löh
> I don't understand what's going on here. Instances for V1 should of
> course be defined if they can be! And in this case, a V1 instance
> makes sense and should be defined. The definition itself doesn't
> matter, as it'll never be executed.
>
The definition cer
I don't understand what's going on here. Instances for V1 should of
course be defined if they can be! And in this case, a V1 instance
makes sense and should be defined. The definition itself doesn't
matter, as it'll never be executed.
Cheers,
Andres
_
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 09:32 +0100, Jos Pedro Magalhes wrote:
>
>
> 2012/2/24 Maxime Henrion
> On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 07:49 +0100, Jos Pedro Magalhes wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2012/2/23 Maxime Henrion
> >
> > > * Why do you have the instance:
>
Folding insert might still be a win if one of the maps is very much smaller
than the other, but since size is O(n) for Data.IntMap, there's no way to
find out if that's the case.
- chris
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:48 AM, wren ng thornton wrote:
> When the two maps are of vastly different sizes,
2012/2/24 Clark Gaebel :
> Since insertion [2] is O(min(n, W)) [ where W is the number of bits in an
> Int ], wouldn't it be more efficient to just fold 'insert' over one of the
> lists for a complexity of O(m*min(n, W))? This would degrade into O(m) in
> the worst case, as opposed to the current O
2012/2/24 Maxime Henrion
> On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 07:49 +0100, Jos Pedro Magalhes wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2012/2/23 Maxime Henrion
> >
> > > * Why do you have the instance:
> > >
> > > instance GDeepSeq V1 where grnf _ = ()
> > >
> > > The only way to constr
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 07:49 +0100, Jos Pedro Magalhes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2012/2/23 Maxime Henrion
>
> > * Why do you have the instance:
> >
> > instance GDeepSeq V1 where grnf _ = ()
> >
> > The only way to construct values of a void type is using ⊥.
14 matches
Mail list logo
