Newest at the top
2025-09-10 15:48:20 +0200 | BLade_X123 | (~manju@user/BLade-X123:75192) BLade_X123 |
2025-09-10 15:42:08 +0200 | segfaultfizzbuzz | (~segfaultf@23-93-74-222.fiber.dynamic.sonic.net) segfaultfizzbuzz |
2025-09-10 15:41:18 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@2a0b:e541:10d0:0:9efc:e8ff:fe24:3213) (Client Quit) |
2025-09-10 15:41:04 +0200 | itaipu | (~itaipu@168.121.97.28) itaipu |
2025-09-10 15:37:35 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@2a0b:e541:10d0:0:9efc:e8ff:fe24:3213) Enrico63 |
2025-09-10 15:31:50 +0200 | <kqr> | I'll give it a shot. Going to take some refactoring but I'd probably need to do that at some point anyway. |
2025-09-10 15:27:47 +0200 | itaipu | (~itaipu@168.121.97.28) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
2025-09-10 15:27:00 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <sm> some kind of map |
2025-09-10 15:26:44 +0200 | segfaultfizzbuzz | (~segfaultf@23-93-74-222.fiber.dynamic.sonic.net) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
2025-09-10 15:26:25 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <sm> kqr I thought of a Map also. I think it's worth a try, often Map has been used in optimisations |
2025-09-10 15:25:05 +0200 | califax_ | califax |
2025-09-10 15:24:12 +0200 | califax | (~califax@user/califx) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) |
2025-09-10 15:23:48 +0200 | califax_ | (~califax@user/califx) califx |
2025-09-10 15:23:20 +0200 | dfg | (~dfg@user/dfg) dfg |
2025-09-10 15:23:20 +0200 | dfg | (~dfg@dfg.rocks) (Changing host) |
2025-09-10 15:23:20 +0200 | dfg | (~dfg@dfg.rocks) |
2025-09-10 15:18:34 +0200 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) humasect |
2025-09-10 15:17:34 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@2a0b:e541:10d0:0:9efc:e8ff:fe24:3213) (Quit: Client closed) |
2025-09-10 15:17:02 +0200 | dfg | (~dfg@user/dfg) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
2025-09-10 15:16:23 +0200 | <kqr> | I imagine a Map element Int would do it, where the Int records the number of instances of the element, but I'm also worried that might be a lot of overhead compared to a list. (In this case, the list is usually fairly short (< 10 items) and probably rarely contains more than three duplicates.) |
2025-09-10 15:15:15 +0200 | itaipu | (~itaipu@168.121.97.28) itaipu |
2025-09-10 15:15:00 +0200 | <kqr> | What would be the most efficient way to store this list? Asking because profiling indicates that "list-except-element" query is where my program spends nearly 20 % of its time. I have already optimised it to be tail-recursive and perform a single iteration through the list, but it's still slow. |
2025-09-10 15:14:57 +0200 | <kqr> | Unrelated to the above: I have a list of things where I want to occasionally perform the query listWithout :: Eq a => [a] -> a -> Maybe [a] which is Nothing if the element does not exist in the list, or Just xs-wihtout-element if the element did exist. This is obviously a Set, except the list can and is allowed to contain duplicates (and in that case only one of the element should be removed). |
2025-09-10 15:06:41 +0200 | ttybitnik | (~ttybitnik@user/wolper) ttybitnik |
2025-09-10 14:49:07 +0200 | chromoblob | (~chromoblo@user/chromob1ot1c) chromoblob\0 |
2025-09-10 14:36:22 +0200 | fp1 | fp |
2025-09-10 14:34:04 +0200 | fp1 | (~Thunderbi@wireless-86-50-141-202.open.aalto.fi) fp |
2025-09-10 14:33:56 +0200 | fp | (~Thunderbi@wireless-86-50-141-202.open.aalto.fi) (Quit: fp) |
2025-09-10 14:32:07 +0200 | chromoblob | (~chromoblo@user/chromob1ot1c) (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) |
2025-09-10 14:24:46 +0200 | segfaultfizzbuzz | (~segfaultf@23-93-74-222.fiber.dynamic.sonic.net) |
2025-09-10 14:15:52 +0200 | segfaultfizzbuzz | (~segfaultf@23-93-74-222.fiber.dynamic.sonic.net) (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) |
2025-09-10 14:14:54 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) merijn |
2025-09-10 14:12:03 +0200 | fp1 | fp |
2025-09-10 14:11:36 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
2025-09-10 14:10:19 +0200 | raym | (~ray@user/raym) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
2025-09-10 14:10:02 +0200 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-54-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) |
2025-09-10 14:09:45 +0200 | fp1 | (~Thunderbi@wireless-86-50-141-202.open.aalto.fi) fp |
2025-09-10 14:09:41 +0200 | fp | (~Thunderbi@wireless-86-50-141-202.open.aalto.fi) (Quit: fp) |
2025-09-10 14:09:02 +0200 | gmg | (~user@user/gehmehgeh) gehmehgeh |
2025-09-10 14:07:15 +0200 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-54-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
2025-09-10 14:07:03 +0200 | tv | (~tv@user/tv) tv |
2025-09-10 14:04:18 +0200 | Lord_of_Life | (~Lord@user/lord-of-life/x-2819915) Lord_of_Life |
2025-09-10 14:03:54 +0200 | <kqr> | That's my intuition too, but since MonadRandom does not expose any way to get the StdGen, a function like shuffle cannot be lifted into a MonadRandom operation. |
2025-09-10 14:02:47 +0200 | weary-traveler | (~user@user/user363627) (Remote host closed the connection) |
2025-09-10 14:02:27 +0200 | chromoblob | (~chromoblo@user/chromob1ot1c) chromoblob\0 |
2025-09-10 14:02:08 +0200 | chromoblob | (~chromoblo@user/chromob1ot1c) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
2025-09-10 13:59:36 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) merijn |
2025-09-10 13:57:44 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
2025-09-10 13:52:26 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) merijn |
2025-09-10 13:51:47 +0200 | tv | (~tv@user/tv) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |