Re: [Haskell-cafe] Arguments against an hypothetical Data.ByteString.Generic?

Oh, okay ^^ sorry, my bad. I should have compiled with -Wall. So I started a repo at https://github.com/YwenP/bytestring-generic Le 27 mars 2012 22:01, Bas van Dijk a écrit :

...

Yes, thank you to remind me of that, I remember now having seen the

On 27 March 2012 21:46, Yves Parès wrote: project.

...

Strict ByteStrings being an alias to Vector Word8 is a good idea (are bytestrings are already implemented exactly like Data.Vector.Storable.Vector). But in that case we could use the API of vector for bytestrings (the bytestring API would be provided only for backwards compatibility, right?).

Yes, I hope that one day the bytestring package and the ByteString type will be deprecated in favor of vector and Data.Vector.Storable.Vector Word8 respectively. vector-bytestring is indeed intended as a package which should make the transition easier.

...

Does vector-bytestring plans to be the new implementation for bytestrings in the end or is it a side-package?

I hope that once we get on par with bytestring's performance we can replace it (we're almost there!, Yell if you want to see some benchmark results).

...

...

In an ideal world we would have a Lazy type family which for each type of vector would return its lazy version

What about a type like:

data Vector v a = Empty | Chuck {-# UNPACK #-} !(v a) (Vector v a) ??

If you build with -Wall you'll see the following unfortunate warning:

Warning: Ignoring unusable UNPACK pragma on the first argument of `Chunk'

Johan Tibell recently discussed some of his ideas on how to solve this:

http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2012-March/022079.htm...

But for now we need to make a specialized type for every different vector type and use an associated type family to abstract over these different types.

Regards,

Bas