Re: Potential space leak in transpose

That doesn't look like it works on infinite lists. On Thu, May 14, 2020, 8:09 PM Ryan Reich wrote:

Hopefully I'm not fooling myself...how about this?

--- transpose :: [[a]] -> [[a]] transpose [] = [] transpose (r1 : rrest) = zipWith' (:) (:[]) id r1 (transpose rrest)

zipWith' :: (a -> b -> c) -> (a -> c) -> (b -> c) -> ([a] -> [b] -> [c]) zipWith' _ _ fb [] bs = fb <$> bs zipWith' _ fa _ as [] = fa <$> as zipWith' f fa fb (a : as) (b : bs) = f a b : zipWith' f fa fb as bs

main = do mapM_ (print . transpose) [ [[1,2,3]], [[1,2,3],[4,5,6]], [[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9]], [[10,11],[20],[],[30,31,32]] ] ---

I see the output: --- [[1],[2],[3]] [[1,4],[2,5],[3,6]] [[1,4,7],[2,5,8],[3,6,9]] [[10,20,30],[11,31],[32]] ---

which is correct (the last example is the one from the haddocks).

I was concerned that the definition of zipWith' (which is akin to the Map function unionWith) is not compatible with the build/fold fusion rule, but the implementation of zipWith itself is basically the same.

Ryan

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 1:17 PM David Feuer wrote:

...

Right. I still think it might be the right thing to do, though. I'm not a big fan of general-purpose library functions that have any unnecessary memory leak hazard. The biggest counterargument is that real code is unlikely to run into that problem.

On Thu, May 14, 2020, 3:35 PM Ryan Reich wrote:

...

My suggestion was much less sophisticated even than that, and is basically what David answered with fusion. Also according to his answer, the original code of transpose lacks the laziness that unzip's actual implementation would provide.

I think what that means is that his concern over allocating extra pairs is about the ones created internally by unzip when it builds the lazy heads-and-tails accessors.

On Thu, May 14, 2020, 03:27 Andreas Abel wrote:

...

...

Why not just inline the definition of unzip and hand-optimize away

On 2020-05-13 22:27, Ryan Reich wrote: the

...

pairs?

Isn't this what the original code of transpose is doing?

...

On Tue, May 12, 2020, 10:24 David Feuer mailto:david.feuer@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, the more eager list allocation can increase residency, but I don't think it can cause a leak.

On Tue, May 12, 2020, 9:48 AM David Feuer mailto:david.feuer@gmail.com> wrote:

The cost of allocating the extra pairs.

On Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:11 AM Andreas Abel mailto:andreas.abel@ifi.lmu.de> wrote:

> I don't know how much that'll cost in practice.

What costs are you worried about?

On 2020-05-12 00:08, David Feuer wrote: > In Data.List, we define > > transpose :: [[a]] -> [[a]] > transpose [] = [] > transpose ([] : xss) = transpose xss > transpose ((x : xs) : xss) = (x : [h | (h : _) <- xss]) : transpose (xs > : [t | (_ : t) <- xss]) > > The potential difficulty is that we essentially mapMaybe over the xss > list twice in the third case. So we hang on to the heads where we need > the tails and the tails where we need the heads. We could fix that with > something like this: > > transpose ((x : xs) : xss) = (x : fronts) : transpose (xs : rears) > where > (fronts, rears) = unzip [(h,t) | (h : t) <- xss] > > I don't know how much that'll cost in practice. > > _______________________________________________ > Libraries mailing list > Libraries@haskell.org mailto:Libraries@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries >

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org mailto:Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries