Newest at the top
2024-09-04 02:37:25 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
2024-09-04 02:35:14 +0200 | myxos | (~myxos@syn-065-028-251-121.res.spectrum.com) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
2024-09-04 02:32:30 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) |
2024-09-04 02:32:06 +0200 | <Inst> | like, say, Foo pat; Bar pat = pat * 3 |
2024-09-04 02:31:48 +0200 | <Inst> | i'm sort of disappointed you can't condense multiple pattern matches into the same term, though |
2024-09-04 02:31:27 +0200 | <Inst> | are the or patterns from GHC 9.12 actually useful? |
2024-09-04 02:29:30 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Bowuigi> If the only valid operations are pretty much "zip" (over codata) and take (to data) variants it makes sense though |
2024-09-04 02:28:40 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Bowuigi> Leary what about the "infinite-ness" of codata tho? You can't fold/traverse over infinite structures without taking infinite time on normal order (thus, breaking Church-Rosser and disproving totality) |
2024-09-04 02:27:09 +0200 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) |
2024-09-04 02:21:41 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
2024-09-04 02:16:43 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) |
2024-09-04 02:14:19 +0200 | Fooo | (~Square@user/square) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
2024-09-04 02:10:53 +0200 | Square2 | (~Square4@user/square) |
2024-09-04 02:10:49 +0200 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
2024-09-04 02:08:05 +0200 | acidjnk_new | (~acidjnk@p200300d6e72cfb5469ca77b0637d5192.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
2024-09-04 02:05:42 +0200 | xff0x | (~xff0x@2405:6580:b080:900:3618:2400:ae18:e1a3) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
2024-09-04 02:05:42 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
2024-09-04 02:02:19 +0200 | Tuplanolla | (~Tuplanoll@91-159-69-59.elisa-laajakaista.fi) (Quit: Leaving.) |
2024-09-04 02:00:58 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) |
2024-09-04 02:00:46 +0200 | jespada | (~jespada@r190-64-133-178.su-static.adinet.com.uy) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
2024-09-04 01:58:11 +0200 | ystael | (~ystael@user/ystael) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
2024-09-04 01:54:30 +0200 | misterfish | (~misterfis@84.53.85.146) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
2024-09-04 01:51:47 +0200 | justsomeguy | (~justsomeg@user/justsomeguy) (Quit: WeeChat 3.6) |
2024-09-04 01:50:45 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) |
2024-09-04 01:45:08 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) |
2024-09-04 01:42:25 +0200 | bliminse | (~bliminse@user/bliminse) |
2024-09-04 01:36:13 +0200 | ZharMeny | (~ZharMeny@user/ZharMeny) (Quit: ERC 5.5.0.29.1 (IRC client for GNU Emacs 29.4)) |
2024-09-04 01:34:22 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
2024-09-04 01:30:20 +0200 | bliminse | (~bliminse@user/bliminse) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
2024-09-04 01:29:21 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) |
2024-09-04 01:29:07 +0200 | acidjnk_new | (~acidjnk@p200300d6e72cfb5469ca77b0637d5192.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
2024-09-04 01:27:21 +0200 | machinedgod | (~machinedg@d50-99-47-73.abhsia.telus.net) |
2024-09-04 01:24:52 +0200 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) |
2024-09-04 01:21:00 +0200 | <davean> | Just I better not care about any specific improvements |
2024-09-04 01:20:31 +0200 | <davean> | but if someone wants to abstractly think about some business logic, I'm happy to expect it to be generally improved |
2024-09-04 01:20:26 +0200 | <c_wraith> | I mean, in that case that's the code I want to run. Something simple where performance isn't critical |
2024-09-04 01:20:12 +0200 | <davean> | It should never be terrible! |
2024-09-04 01:20:04 +0200 | <davean> | c_wraith: right, for at least core stuff. I'm happy when I have a lot of code saying "it'll do a decent job on cleaning up this code that runs only a few times and isn't core" |
2024-09-04 01:19:56 +0200 | jespada | (~jespada@r190-64-133-178.su-static.adinet.com.uy) |
2024-09-04 01:19:49 +0200 | oo_miguel | (~Thunderbi@78.10.207.45) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
2024-09-04 01:19:31 +0200 | <c_wraith> | My general philosophy is to write the code I want to run. Not some other code that I hope the compiler magically fixes for me. :) |
2024-09-04 01:18:50 +0200 | <davean> | Optimizations are great, but they're there to clean up your average code and so should target the best average improvements. Thus they're prone to tunning, and changes. Core peroformance critical code is best done directly. |
2024-09-04 01:18:35 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
2024-09-04 01:17:04 +0200 | <monochrom> | That's fair. |
2024-09-04 01:15:52 +0200 | <davean> | So I will repeat that IME this sort of thing is very unstable across GHC versions |
2024-09-04 01:15:18 +0200 | <Axman6> | {} -> [] |
2024-09-04 01:14:55 +0200 | sawilagar | (~sawilagar@user/sawilagar) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
2024-09-04 01:14:47 +0200 | <monochrom> | "only one way to find out" :) |
2024-09-04 01:14:43 +0200 | <Axman6> | not sure |
2024-09-04 01:14:13 +0200 | <c_wraith> | do literals get compiled like that? |