Newest at the top
| 2024-09-21 03:12:21 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 03:07:40 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) |
| 2024-09-21 03:04:01 +0200 | <cheater> | what |
| 2024-09-21 02:56:38 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 02:55:07 +0200 | troojg | (~troojg@user/troojg) |
| 2024-09-21 02:53:19 +0200 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 02:51:51 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) |
| 2024-09-21 02:40:52 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 02:36:07 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) |
| 2024-09-21 02:33:59 +0200 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) |
| 2024-09-21 02:32:20 +0200 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2024-09-21 02:25:30 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 02:22:56 +0200 | ZharMeny | (~ZharMeny@user/ZharMeny) (Quit: ERC 5.5.0.29.1 (IRC client for GNU Emacs 29.4)) |
| 2024-09-21 02:20:19 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) |
| 2024-09-21 02:15:52 +0200 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) |
| 2024-09-21 02:10:09 +0200 | morb | (~morb@pool-108-41-100-120.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) |
| 2024-09-21 02:09:49 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 02:07:53 +0200 | <Inst> | it looks like it's wonkiness related to default types, because if I affix a type annotation, it evaluates |
| 2024-09-21 02:07:13 +0200 | <Inst> | if i bang a let declaration in a do block, do traceShowId over a number, it doesn't evaluate, if I traceShowId something else, it evaluates |
| 2024-09-21 02:06:35 +0200 | <Inst> | it's more like weirdness with GHCI, possibly not an issue with ghc |
| 2024-09-21 02:04:40 +0200 | <probie> | You can evaluate that question thunk at a later time |
| 2024-09-21 02:04:35 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) |
| 2024-09-21 01:58:36 +0200 | <Inst> | actually, forget it, maybe another time |
| 2024-09-21 01:58:10 +0200 | <Inst> | also, another question |
| 2024-09-21 01:58:08 +0200 | morb | (~morb@pool-108-41-100-120.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 01:53:54 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 01:53:27 +0200 | morb | (~morb@pool-108-41-100-120.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) |
| 2024-09-21 01:52:17 +0200 | <Inst> | the other realistic issue is, that from what i've seen, thinking lazily isn't prioritized in most haskell books i've seen, and there's been commercial users of haskell that've dropped Haskell because they weren't proficient in laziness |
| 2024-09-21 01:50:23 +0200 | <Inst> | and yeah i'm aware of the () desugaring of do |
| 2024-09-21 01:50:07 +0200 | <Inst> | monochrom: I should have been more careful in wording and asked whether >>= leaks in direct use, i'm still pouring over GHC core output to check whether or not it does on O2 or higher optimizations |
| 2024-09-21 01:49:18 +0200 | morb | (~morb@pool-108-41-100-120.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 01:48:45 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) |
| 2024-09-21 01:46:32 +0200 | Oxf1ac | (~0xf1ac@62.4.42.168) (Quit: WeeChat 4.4.2) |
| 2024-09-21 01:43:39 +0200 | acidjnk | (~acidjnk@p200300d6e72cfb13044e7157fd3ef949.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 01:43:16 +0200 | morb | (~morb@pool-108-41-100-120.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) |
| 2024-09-21 01:37:48 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 01:36:14 +0200 | Squared | (~Square@user/square) |
| 2024-09-21 01:32:56 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) |
| 2024-09-21 01:26:35 +0200 | <Inst> | criticism acknowledged |
| 2024-09-21 01:25:57 +0200 | <monochrom> | The dark pattern of always going hyperbole is. |
| 2024-09-21 01:25:18 +0200 | <monochrom> | Being novice in technical matters is not the issue I'm complaining about. |
| 2024-09-21 01:24:18 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2024-09-21 01:20:27 +0200 | <Inst> | that said, just out of curiosity, when do you introduce Debug.Trace, monochrom? |
| 2024-09-21 01:19:52 +0200 | <Inst> | i suppose i should apologize for "baby's first exposure to thinking space and spaceleaks with laziness", but it would do no good |
| 2024-09-21 01:19:18 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) |
| 2024-09-21 01:19:01 +0200 | <monochrom> | "Does >>= leak?" is not making a big fuzz? |
| 2024-09-21 01:18:47 +0200 | <Inst> | it's a good reason not to abuse >>= and =<< for golfing |
| 2024-09-21 01:18:38 +0200 | <Inst> | ehhh, just pointing out infelicities, it's not a big deal tbh |
| 2024-09-21 01:18:07 +0200 | <monochrom> | Not to mention that "foo <|> (bar <|> x)" is not that hard to write if you find the infixl unsatisfactory. |
| 2024-09-21 01:13:57 +0200 | morb | (~morb@pool-108-41-100-120.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |