[Haskell-cafe] Re: OCaml list sees abysmal Language Shootoutresults

Shawn Garbett shawn_garbett at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 13 15:28:46 EDT 2004

--- Robert Dockins <robdockins at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Then perhaps it is worth considering having multiple
> implementations and 
>   choosing between them with pragmas and/or command
> line switches (with 
> a sensible default naturally).  Maybe doubly linked
> lists are not a 
> great idea, but if we had a good implementation
> with, eg. O(1) access to 
> both ends of the list but poor sharing, we can
> choose to use it only in 
> cases where queue semantics are important and
> sharing is not.  It would 
> be nice to be able to monkey about with that kind of
> "under the hood" 
> functionality w/o having to make any code changes. 
> You could also do 
> fun things like have chained-buffer list
> implementations for [Word8], 
> [Char] etc.

Lists are an integral part of the Haskell language,
and in fact most languages have some version of list
at a fundamental level. Here's an interesting (not
necessarily useful!) shift of viewpoint: What if List
were a type class?


Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list