I second Ryan's recommendation of using unamb [1,2,3] to give you unbiased (symmetric) laziness.
The zip definition could also be written as
zip xs@(x:xs') ys@(y:ys') =
assuming (xs == []) [] `unamb`
assuming (ys == []) [] `unamb`
(x,y) : zip xs' ys'
The 'assuming' function yields a value if a condition is true and otherwise is bottom:
assuming :: Bool -> a -> a
assuming True a = a
assuming False _ = undefined
This zip definition is a special case of the annihilator pattern, so
zip = parAnnihilator (\ (x:xs') (y:ys') -> (x,y) : zip xs' ys') []
where 'parAnnihilator' is defined in Data.Unamb (along with other goodies) as follows:
parAnnihilator :: Eq a => (a -> a -> a) -> a -> (a -> a -> a)
parAnnihilator op ann x y =
assuming (x == ann) ann `unamb`
assuming (y == ann) ann `unamb`
(x `op` y)
[1] http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Unamb
[2] http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/unamb/latest/doc/html/Data-Unamb.html
[3] http://conal.net/blog/tag/unamb/
- conal
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:10 AM, ChrisK <haskell@list.mightyreason.com> wrote:If you are obsessive about least-strictness and performance isn't a
> Consider that the order of pattern matching can matter as well, the simplest
> common case being zip:
>
> zip xs [] = []
> zip [] ys = []
> zip (x:xs) (y:ys) = (x,y) : zip xs ys
giant concern, this seems like a perfect use for Conal's unamb[1]
operator.
zipR xs [] = []
zipR [] ys = []
zipR (x:xs) (y:ys) = (x,y) : zip xs ys
zipL [] ys = []
zipL xs [] = []
zipL (x:xs) (y:ys) = (x,y) : zip xs ys
zip xs ys = unamb (zipL xs ys) (zipR xs ys)
This runs both zipL and zipR in parallel until one of them gives a
result; if neither of them is _|_ they are guaranteed to be identical,
so we can "unambiguously choose" whichever one gives a result first.
-- ryan
[1] http://conal.net/blog/posts/functional-concurrency-with-unambiguous-choice/
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe