On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 09:15:59PM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Does that mean that the code is unwritten or that the documentation is unwritten. IAMFI :)
of course all "unwritten" notes means unfinished docs. library contains more than 100 functions so it was not easy to document them all. you can browse sources, although probably it will not help too much
OK.
There seems to be some overlap between Streams and ByteStrings: Could a Stream built on a ByteString backend benefit from all the fusion work that's been put into ByteStrings recently? Oh wait, I see you list that as 'future work' on the wiki page...
if you will write all popular words together, this probably will be just a set of popular words, not something working :) how fusion should work together with serialization?
I'm thinking of the elimination of the boxing of values drawn out of the input stream where possible, eg if I was writing a stream processor that folded across the values in the input stream, it would (presumably) be more efficient if the compiler noticed that the function in question was (say) just reading Int values at offsets within the stream, and could pass those as unboxed references in the compiled code rather than freshly constructed values. Fusion might be the wrong term: I was thinking by analogy with loop fusion, with one of the loops was the 'data reading' loop. Does that make sense?
[1] Which sick application *needs* intermixed endianness?
i just tried to implement everything possible :)
Completeness is always good! Thanks for the pointers, Phil -- http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt