Re: Does anyone want intersperse for Data.Sequence?

That sounds interesting, Ben. I'm sure everyone will be happy to try them out when you put them up on GitHub and/or Hackage. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Ben wrote:

clojure-style persistent vectors based on hashed array mapped tries, or RRB-trees [1][2] would be great to have. the basic structure is the same for unordered-container's hash maps, so reusing code there is a possibility.

b

1 - http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/169879/files/RMTrees.pdf 2 - https://github.com/clojure/core.rrb-vector/

...

On Dec 29, 2014, at 8:09 AM, Ross Paterson wrote:

On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 11:01:46AM +0200, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:

...

On 27/12/14 17:03, Greg Weber wrote:

...

Sequence is not used nearly enough.

Not really. Seq has high constant factors and for small sizes is often slower than plain lists. Nor is it space-efficient (for big sizes).

Clearly Seq uses more space than arrays, but I estimate that a large Seq uses between 5/6 and 4/3 of the space of an equivalent list, with Seq's built with deque operations tending toward the lower end and append/split moving them toward the middle of the range. So I'd say they're about the same (unless the list is deforested, of course). Do you have measurements that give different results?

...

It probably has its use cases, but most of the time you'd be better off with one of the other choices:

Those choices will beat Seq on particular operation mixes, but the virtue of Seq is that it gives decent performance over a broad set of operations. _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries