Re: 回复： Add DList to base

The current NFData instance in dlist is the best you can do. seq on a function (very) rarely does what you want. The instance the package defines guarantees that the DList represents a list that can be reduced to normal form. The semantics are right. Efficiency-wise, it's lousy, but there's no way to fix it (without changing the underlying representation). On Jun 13, 2017 11:26 PM, "Dr.Koster" wrote:

What can that offer in the way of instances? Well, it's clearly not a Functor, so it's certainly not Applicative, Monad, MonadPlus, or Traversable. Ouch. There's no way to write matching Read and Show instances, so you're stuck picking just one. Similarly, IsList and IsString aren't guaranteed to round-trip properly. NFData is utterly absurd, of course. So what's left? Foldable, Monoid, and either Read or Show. The Foldable instance doesn't even interact nicely with the Monoid instance: there's no guarantee that foldMap f xs <> foldMap f ys = foldMap f (xs <> ys). So there's pretty much *nothing going on here*. DList x just doesn't have much more to offer than Endo [x]. We already have Endo; ergo, we don't need DList.

I think that's OK: 1) If we're concerning those inefficient instances(My understanding is those defined using `toList`, such as `Foldable` and `Functor`), we can just don't add them. 2) Even `type DList a = Endo [a]` is OK, what i'm asking is CPSed operations (such as cons, replicate...) working on this type, not those instances. BTW. Isn't current `NFData`instance in dlist package problematic? We should directly `seq` the function IMHO. ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------ *发件人:* "David Feuer";; *发送时间:* 2017年6月6日(星期二) 中午11:09 *收件人:* "Dr.Koster"; *抄送:* "libraries"; *主题:* Re: Add DList to base I'm -1 on this. For an abstract DList-style list builder, there's the dlist package, which you shouldn't fear depending on (its only dependencies are base and deepseq, both of which are GHC boot packages). The dlist package defines a DList that's an instance of MonadPlus, Traversable, IsList, Ord, Read, Show, IsString, Monoid, and NFData, and provides a variety of functions for working with them. Many of the instances and functions are, inherently, absurdly inefficient. This is because there's basically *nothing* you can do to a DList directly except build one up with `.` and tear one down with `apply`. DLists are extremely efficient precisely when GHC is able to optimize them away altogether. As soon as that is not the case, they're mediocre at best. Now suppose you want a non-abstract DList type (with the constructor exposed). newtype DList a = DL { unDL :: [a] -> [a] } What can that offer in the way of instances? Well, it's clearly not a Functor, so it's certainly not Applicative, Monad, MonadPlus, or Traversable. Ouch. There's no way to write matching Read and Show instances, so you're stuck picking just one. Similarly, IsList and IsString aren't guaranteed to round-trip properly. NFData is utterly absurd, of course. So what's left? Foldable, Monoid, and either Read or Show. The Foldable instance doesn't even interact nicely with the Monoid instance: there's no guarantee that foldMap f xs <> foldMap f ys = foldMap f (xs <> ys). So there's pretty much *nothing going on here*. DList x just doesn't have much more to offer than Endo [x]. We already have Endo; ergo, we don't need DList. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Dr.Koster wrote:

Currently GHC already defined DList for internal use in serveral places. This data type is a nature choice when you need CPS your append, which is a common need. I think base should provide it.

Cheers~ Winter

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