Re: [Haskell-cafe] missing optimization for (++)

Actually, it is likely that neither of the examples you gave will end up traversing the spine of the list. The definition of ys would almost certainly be inlined, and then the rule would fire. Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 5, 2018, at 5:18 PM, Ben Franksen wrote:

...

Am 05.03.2018 um 13:40 schrieb Li-yao Xia:

...

On 03/05/2018 07:13 AM, Ben Franksen wrote: Okay, okay, I got it. I did not think about strictness when I asked. The funny thing is that the two fusion rules combined, as explained by Josef, seem to cause this shortcut to be taken. But that can't be true because (++) really is non-strict, I tested that, with -O2. How do you explain that?

Rewrite rules apply at compile time and don't force any computation. The second rule fires only if the second argument of (++) is syntactically []. Otherwise the code doesn't change, and strictness is preserved.

Thanks, yet another thing learned. So

let ys = [] in xs ++ ys

will traverse the spine of xs but

xs ++ []

will not. Interesting.

(But who writes something like "xs ++ []" in a real program?)

Cheers Ben

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.