[Haskell-cafe] Binary serialization, was Re: Abstraction leak

[Philip Armstrong]

On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 09:15:59PM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
>> Does that mean that the code is unwritten or that the documentation is
>> unwritten. IAMFI :)
>
>of course all "unwritten" notes means unfinished docs. library
>contains more than 100 functions so it was not easy to document them
>all. you can browse sources, although probably it will not help too
>much

OK.

>> There seems to be some overlap between Streams and ByteStrings: Could
>> a Stream built on a ByteString backend benefit from all the fusion
>> work that's been put into ByteStrings recently? Oh wait, I see you
>> list that as 'future work' on the wiki page...
>
>if you will write all popular words together, this probably will be
>just a set of popular words, not something working :)  how fusion
>should work together with serialization?

I'm thinking of the elimination of the boxing of values drawn out of
the input stream where possible, eg if I was writing a stream
processor that folded across the values in the input stream, it would
(presumably) be more efficient if the compiler noticed that the
function in question was (say) just reading Int values at offsets
within the stream, and could pass those as unboxed references in the
compiled code rather than freshly constructed values.

Fusion might be the wrong term: I was thinking by analogy with loop
fusion, with one of the loops was the 'data reading' loop. Does that
make sense?

>> [1] Which sick application *needs* intermixed endianness?
>
>i just tried to implement everything possible :)

Completeness is always good!

Thanks for the pointers,

Phil

-- 
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt