19 Dec
2011
19 Dec
'11
5:06 p.m.
On 12/15/11 12:38 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| Am Montag, den 12.12.2011, 15:37 -0500 schrieb wren ng thornton: |> I've noticed that take and filter are good producers (and consumers) |> for list fusion, but takeWhile, drop, and dropWhile are not. Is there |> any reason for this discrepancy? |> |> If not, would I need to go through the libraries@ process for fixing |> it, or should I just submit a patch?
Please just submit a patch.
Will do.
The latter approach is probably safer. Follow the pattern for (++).
That's what I was planning on. Replacing unfused calls by non-fusable implementations seems to be a performance win in the general case. -- Live well, ~wren