Re: Pre-proposal discussion: add a version of dropWhileEnd with different laziness properties to Data.List

So I'm understanding this properly, there is a fast version of find-conduit that uses RawFilePath, and the regular find-conduit that uses system-filepath? Are there benchmarks published that compare the two? On Sep 29, 2014 3:11 PM, "Greg Weber" wrote:

Yep, I didn't understand what was going on. The fast version of find-conduit was using a raw file path — Sent from Mailbox https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bardur Arantsson wrote:

...

...

...

...

Do you mean system-filepath [1]?

No. The api is ok, but performance is terrible because everything is a String. Traversing large directories in Haskell is orders of magnitude slower than it should be (unless you use posix-paths, which obviously

isn't

...

portable). I mean something that internally uses a RawFilePath on

On 2014-09-29 23:31, Greg Weber wrote: posix

...

...

systems and some windows-specific thing on Windows.

I don't know how to reconcile this statement with how find-conduit was benchmarked to operate about as fast as GNU grep since it uses system-filepath. I am probably missing something important.

http://hackage.haskell.org/package/find-conduit-0.4.1/docs/Data-Conduit-Find...

...

I'm not seeing exactly what "grep" has to do with "find"...?

Did you mean to compare GNU find with "find-conduit"?

Regards,

_______________________________________________ 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