2025/09/11

Newest at the top

2025-09-11 21:36:27 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2025-09-11 21:33:14 +0200target_i(~target_i@user/target-i/x-6023099) target_i
2025-09-11 21:31:44 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-09-11 21:25:16 +0200emperori(~emperori@2401:4900:6299:772f:dc20:49b3:341f:d3e3) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2025-09-11 21:22:36 +0200Alleria(~Alleria@user/alleria) Alleria
2025-09-11 21:20:44 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2025-09-11 21:19:42 +0200Enrico63(~Enrico63@2a0b:e541:10d0:0:9efc:e8ff:fe24:3213) Enrico63
2025-09-11 21:19:39 +0200Beowulf(florian@gabilgathol.bandrate.org)
2025-09-11 21:16:48 +0200wootehfoot(~wootehfoo@user/wootehfoot) (Quit: Leaving)
2025-09-11 21:16:38 +0200gehmehgehgmg
2025-09-11 21:16:32 +0200gmg(~user@user/gehmehgeh) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2025-09-11 21:16:24 +0200gehmehgeh(~user@user/gehmehgeh) gehmehgeh
2025-09-11 21:15:54 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-09-11 21:14:52 +0200sprotte24(~sprotte24@p5dd5d928.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2025-09-11 21:13:53 +0200Beowulf(florian@gabilgathol.bandrate.org) (Quit: = "")
2025-09-11 21:12:51 +0200trickard_(~trickard@cpe-54-98-47-163.wireline.com.au)
2025-09-11 21:12:38 +0200trickard(~trickard@cpe-54-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2025-09-11 21:12:36 +0200Alleria(~Alleria@user/alleria) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2025-09-11 21:11:29 +0200sprotte24_(~sprotte24@p5dd5d928.dip0.t-ipconnect.de)
2025-09-11 21:09:20 +0200byorgey(~byorgey@user/byorgey) byorgey
2025-09-11 21:09:02 +0200byorgey(~byorgey@user/byorgey) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2025-09-11 21:08:24 +0200Lycurgus(~juan@user/Lycurgus) Lycurgus
2025-09-11 21:06:06 +0200 <dminuoso> The type system will cover practically all uses, and for non-trivial ideas of a section expression you can always just degrade to an explicit lambda - just like with current operator sections.
2025-09-11 21:05:11 +0200 <dminuoso> ski: Regarding the question of how far that hypothetical section syntax would extend, the answer is simple: not at all, just like current sections dont extend at all.
2025-09-11 21:04:44 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2025-09-11 21:03:03 +0200Googulator(~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-217b-fd1e-c506-2528-080c.pool6.digikabel.hu)
2025-09-11 21:02:51 +0200Googulator(~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-217b-fd1e-c506-2528-080c.pool6.digikabel.hu) (Quit: Client closed)
2025-09-11 21:02:15 +0200inline(~inline@ip-005-146-196-014.um05.pools.vodafone-ip.de) Inline
2025-09-11 21:00:41 +0200caconym747(~caconym@user/caconym) caconym
2025-09-11 21:00:20 +0200 <tomsmeding> and in case 2, if that deduplicated call takes much of the runtime that was supposed to be parallel, why are you running it in parallel -- it's the same call multiple times
2025-09-11 21:00:07 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-09-11 21:00:00 +0200caconym747(~caconym@user/caconym) (Quit: bye)
2025-09-11 20:59:47 +0200 <tomsmeding> geekosaur: I'd guess in that situation, either 1. GHC doesn't realise it's the same call, so they will be separate calls at runtime anyway and thus be separate thunks, or 2. GHC did lift out the inner call and it will only be evaluated once, so subsequent calls to the same function will not evaluate the sequential part again
2025-09-11 20:58:09 +0200inline(~inline@ip-005-146-196-014.um05.pools.vodafone-ip.de) (Remote host closed the connection)
2025-09-11 20:57:51 +0200 <geekosaur> consider launching multiple threads running the same function: if they all call the same inner function with the same parameters, this may end up being the same thunk (couldn't happen in IO, I think, but pure code allows lifting which is part of why unsafe*PerformIO is unsafe and accursed… is *really* unsafe)
2025-09-11 20:54:39 +0200Beowulf(florian@gabilgathol.bandrate.org)
2025-09-11 20:50:10 +0200 <tomsmeding> (which is not particularly useful in the first place)
2025-09-11 20:50:00 +0200 <tomsmeding> geekosaur: wouldn't that only be if you evaluate the same thunk from multiple threads?
2025-09-11 20:48:16 +0200Beowulf(florian@gabilgathol.bandrate.org) (Quit: = "")
2025-09-11 20:44:39 +0200emperori(~emperori@2401:4900:6299:772f:dc20:49b3:341f:d3e3)
2025-09-11 20:40:09 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2025-09-11 20:33:11 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-09-11 20:24:40 +0200divlamir(~divlamir@user/divlamir) divlamir
2025-09-11 20:24:27 +0200divlamir(~divlamir@user/divlamir) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2025-09-11 20:22:01 +0200Enrico63(~Enrico63@2a0b:e541:10d0:0:9efc:e8ff:fe24:3213) (Quit: Client closed)
2025-09-11 20:20:13 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2025-09-11 20:15:10 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-09-11 20:09:32 +0200inline(~inline@ip-005-146-196-014.um05.pools.vodafone-ip.de) Inline
2025-09-11 20:08:58 +0200inline(~inline@ip-005-146-196-014.um05.pools.vodafone-ip.de) (Remote host closed the connection)
2025-09-11 20:04:07 +0200merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)