[Haskell-cafe] Re: How to make code least strict?

[Conal Elliott]

Lovely reformulation, Ryan!

I think lub [4] is sufficient typeclass hackery for unambPatterns:

   unambPatterns == lubs == foldr lub undefined

[4] http://conal.net/blog/posts/merging-partial-values

I think performance is okay now, if you have very recent versions of unamb
*and* GHC head (containing some concurrency bug fixes).  See
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Unamb .  The GHC fix will take a while to get
into common use.

My definitions of zip via (a) 'assuming' & 'unamb' and (b) parAnnihilator
are badly broken.  For one, the unamb arguments are incompatible (since i
didn't check for both non-null args in the third case).  Also, the types
aren't right for parAnnihilator.

I tried out this idea, and it seems to work out very nicely.  See the
brand-new blog post
http://conal.net/blog/posts/lazier-function-definitions-by-merging-partial-values/.
 Blog comments, please!

   - Conal

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Ryan Ingram <ryani.spam at gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, I see a nice pattern here for unamb + pattern matching:
>
> > zip xs ys = foldr unamb undefined [p1 xs ys, p2 xs ys, p3 xs ys] where
> >     p1 [] _ = []
> >     p2 _ [] = []
> >     p3 (x:xs) (y:ys) = (x,y) : zip xs ys
>
> Basically, split each pattern out into a separate function (which by
> definition is _|_ if there is no match), then use unamb to combine
> them.
>
> The invariant you need to maintain is that potentially overlapping
> pattern matches (p1 and p2, here) must return the same result.
>
> With a little typeclass hackery you could turn this into
>
> > zip = unambPatterns [p1,p2,p3] where {- p1, p2, p3 as above -}
>
> Sadly, I believe the performance of "parallel-or"-style operations is
> pretty hideous right now.  Conal?
>
>  -- ryan
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Conal Elliott <conal at conal.net> wrote:
> > I second Ryan's recommendation of using unamb [1,2,3] to give you
> unbiased
> > (symmetric) laziness.
> >
> > The zip definition could also be written as
> >
> >     zip xs@(x:xs') ys@(y:ys') =
> >       assuming (xs == []) [] `unamb`
> >       assuming (ys == []) [] `unamb`
> >       (x,y) : zip xs' ys'
> >
> > The 'assuming' function yields a value if a condition is true and
> otherwise
> > is bottom:
> >
> >     assuming :: Bool -> a -> a
> >     assuming True  a = a
> >     assuming False _ = undefined
> >
> > This zip definition is a special case of the annihilator pattern, so
> >
> >     zip = parAnnihilator (\ (x:xs') (y:ys') -> (x,y) : zip xs' ys') []
> >
> > where 'parAnnihilator' is defined in Data.Unamb (along with other
> goodies)
> > as follows:
> >
> >     parAnnihilator :: Eq a => (a -> a -> a) -> a -> (a -> a -> a)
> >     parAnnihilator op ann x y =
> >       assuming (x == ann) ann `unamb`
> >       assuming (y == ann) ann `unamb`
> >       (x `op` y)
> >
> > [1] http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Unamb
> > [2]
> >
> http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/unamb/latest/doc/html/Data-Unamb.html
> > [3] http://conal.net/blog/tag/unamb/
> >
> >    - conal
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Ryan Ingram <ryani.spam at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:10 AM, ChrisK <haskell at list.mightyreason.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Consider that the order of pattern matching can matter as well, the
> >> > simplest
> >> > common case being zip:
> >> >
> >> > zip xs [] = []
> >> > zip [] ys = []
> >> > zip (x:xs) (y:ys) = (x,y) : zip xs ys
> >>
> >> If you are obsessive about least-strictness and performance isn't a
> >> giant concern, this seems like a perfect use for Conal's unamb[1]
> >> operator.
> >>
> >> zipR xs [] = []
> >> zipR [] ys = []
> >> zipR (x:xs) (y:ys) = (x,y) : zip xs ys
> >>
> >> zipL [] ys = []
> >> zipL xs [] = []
> >> zipL (x:xs) (y:ys) = (x,y) : zip xs ys
> >>
> >> zip xs ys = unamb (zipL xs ys) (zipR xs ys)
> >>
> >> This runs both zipL and zipR in parallel until one of them gives a
> >> result; if neither of them is _|_ they are guaranteed to be identical,
> >> so we can "unambiguously choose" whichever one gives a result first.
> >>
> >>  -- ryan
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> http://conal.net/blog/posts/functional-concurrency-with-unambiguous-choice/
> >> _______________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20090120/7ea832c9/attachment.htm