G'day all.
Quoting Joel Reymont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thank you Andrew! Does it have any effect on performance?
Yes, however I believe that GHC can perform this transformation
automatically at high optimisation levels. Even so, for portability,
it's wise not to rely on your implementation perf
On Sunday 11 December 2005 06:54 pm, Joel Reymont wrote:
> Thank you Andrew! Does it have any effect on performance? Is there a
> speed up of any sort from not passing parameters?
Shooting from the hip here, but I doubt it -- AFAIK it all gets lambda-lifted
in the compiler anyway.
> On Dec 11, 2
Thank you Andrew! Does it have any effect on performance? Is there a
speed up of any sort from not passing parameters?
On Dec 11, 2005, at 11:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good, but even better is this:
writeLoop :: (Event a -> IO ()) -> Handle -> (SSL, BIO, BIO) -> IO ()
writeLoop post h
G'day.
Quoting Joel Reymont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> writeLoop :: (Event a -> IO ()) -> Handle -> (SSL, BIO, BIO) -> IO ()
> writeLoop post h ssl =
> do handle (\e -> post $ NetworkError e) $
>do cmd <- read h ssl
> post $! Cmd $! cmd
> writeLoop post
Hello Joel,
Saturday, December 10, 2005, 11:41:52 PM, you wrote:
JR> I always wandered, does ghc do tail-call optimization?
ghc does this. but only first of your examples is tail-called. second
recursively creates exception hadnlers around your code. just try to
textually replace call to writeLo
I always wandered, does ghc do tail-call optimization?
Would it optimize the two variants of the function below or just the
first one?
--- Proper?
writeLoop :: (Event a -> IO ()) -> Handle -> (SSL, BIO, BIO) -> IO ()
writeLoop post h ssl =
do handle (\e -> post $ NetworkError e) $
