Proposal #2629: Data.List: Replace nub;
add nubOrd, nubInt, nubWith
lemming at henning-thielemann.de
Tue Sep 30 10:09:51 EDT 2008
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> On 2008 Sep 29, at 19:40, Alexander Dunlap wrote:
>> Well, yes, but presumably different compilers could optimize in
>> different ways. (Perhaps they could use some class behind the scenes,
>> or their own optimizing mechanism?) My point is that we shouldn't have
>> multiple exposed functions for _exactly_ the same semantic operation.
> Tell it to the Prelude. (^), (^^), (**) anyone?
I don't see the relation between the different kind of powers and the
different implementations of 'nub'. As far as I understand 'nubInt' is
just an optimization of the generic 'nub'. In contrast to that, the three
power operators denote really different operations:
I think it is reasonable to drop in an optimized 'nub' for certain types
by an optimizer rule, just like it is legitimate to drop in a special GSL
function for (GSLMatrix.map sin), or a determinant algorithm for Double
matrices which uses division, whereas the generic determinant computation
does not need divisions.
More information about the Libraries