andy at galois.com
Thu Apr 6 03:06:53 EDT 2006
On Apr 5, 2006, at 4:51 PM, John Meacham wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 10:34:09AM -0500, Spencer Janssen wrote:
>> How about an implementation that sets the deepSeq'd bit *after* each
>> field has been successfully deepSeq'd? deepSeq'ing a cyclic
>> would behave just like an infinite structure.
> what would be the point of having a bit then?
Because deepSeq's cost to evaluate a list that will eventually be
required is linear.
The maximum number of deepSeq calls (and recursive calls) you can do
structure is simply the number of nodes.
foldr (\ a as -> deepSeq (a : as))  $ some list
With the bit ==> one deepSeq per cons, then we hit the 'is-pre-
Without the bit ==> O(n^2)
> in any case, we should talk about the meaning of deepseqing something,
> not its implementation.
> depth limited recursive seq seems like the best route to me.
> John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime at haskell.org
More information about the Haskell-prime