"Simon Marlow"
Actually no... but perhaps it's time to turn it on.
Yeah, I noticed a slight saving by turning an Int into an !Int, but only when using -funbox-... option.
So the array shouldn't be too costly, I think - but perhaps an UArray would reduce cost from three words to one word per element?
It already costs one word per element (think of nullary constructors as free - we only have one copy of each nullary constructor which everybody points to).
*slap forehead* Ah, of course. However, with a small number of constructors, I might be able to squeeze things into less than a word (i.e. pointer at 32 bits). I could e.g. use an UArray over Word32 and represent a sequence of my nullaries in each word. (> If the array is the same for each element, why store it in the list at
all?
I realise this, but eventually I want to have my Bar's referring to a (much smaller than my n) set of arrays.)
This isn't too far from what I observe, so I hope my analysis is somewhat correct. :-)
Yes, sounds right.
Cool. That means there's a potential here; I'll get to it.
This is assuming the compiler doesn't do any of this on its own...
The compiler won't do any of this on its own. Remember that you can't pass a BarList to standard list functions like length, for example,
Yes, I see. Would it be possible to have a standard strict list, i.e. something equivalent of data SList a = SNil | SCons !a SList (which could be a member of the same class as the normal lists, and have the usual functions (length, ++, isPrefixOf...) overloaded)? -kzm -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants