On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Thomas Hartman wrote:
With the state version, there's a lot of behind-the-scenes magic, and as we've seen, things can go wrong.
Also, the issue isn't infinite lists, but lists that are longer than the sum of the partitions provided. The state monad partition version goes equally as badly awry if the test is restructured as
testP pf = mapM_ putStrLn [ show . pf ( take 1000 [3,7..] ) $ [1..10] , show . pf [3,7,11,15] $ ( take (10^6) [1..]) , show . head . last $ pf (take 1000 $ [3,3..]) [1..10^6] ]
This is interesting. It seems to be the familiar issue that sequence does not play as nicely with the GC as one might imagine: http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/7itbi/mapm_mapm_and_monadic_stateme... I suspect this may be a general problem that we will keep encountering when using higher-order functions, at least with this compiler. I wonder if JHC or some other compiler might work better with these examples? -- Russell O'Connor http://r6.ca/ ``All talk about `theft,''' the general counsel of the American Graphophone Company wrote, ``is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as defined by statute.''