Newest at the top
| 2026-03-07 14:15:07 +0100 | <__monty__> | Ah, great, that should work for loonycyborg then. |
| 2026-03-07 14:13:10 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@62.45.136.136) merijn |
| 2026-03-07 14:11:33 +0100 | <Leary> | __monty__: See this snippet I grepped from my logs: https://paste.tomsmeding.com/dXOuNbFn |
| 2026-03-07 14:09:23 +0100 | <[exa]> | tusko: do write in other languages to learn and appreciate the difference. :] |
| 2026-03-07 14:06:27 +0100 | <__monty__> | Isn't each line prefixed? |
| 2026-03-07 14:05:57 +0100 | tremon | (~tremon@83.80.159.219) tremon |
| 2026-03-07 14:05:16 +0100 | <Leary> | I gather you just need to put the command in a second line. |
| 2026-03-07 14:02:24 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <loonycyborg> is there a way to interact with lambabot from matrix? |
| 2026-03-07 14:01:45 +0100 | <__monty__> | loonycyborg: No, the Matrix bridge is a single bot IRC-side. So your messages are prefixed with your nick. |
| 2026-03-07 14:01:38 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2026-03-07 14:01:22 +0100 | <int-e> | (Unpacking isn't completely free: If you unpack and later repack a value, that means a new heap object has to be created for it. This is why for data, GHC only does it when you give it a hint to do so.) |
| 2026-03-07 14:00:59 +0100 | <Guest89> | and I guess the same if you have strict data in another type? |
| 2026-03-07 14:00:43 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <loonycyborg> it ate '>' |
| 2026-03-07 14:00:31 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <loonycyborg> hmm |
| 2026-03-07 14:00:24 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <loonycyborg> > length [undefined, undefined, undefined] |
| 2026-03-07 14:00:13 +0100 | <Guest89> | makes sense I suppose |
| 2026-03-07 14:00:03 +0100 | <int-e> | yes, usually |
| 2026-03-07 13:59:45 +0100 | <Guest89> | I guess the point is that you prefer strict data when it contains primitives? |
| 2026-03-07 13:58:56 +0100 | <Guest89> | guess I assumed it to be semantically different from an exception but I think I get what you mean |
| 2026-03-07 13:58:31 +0100 | <int-e> | (Those are the usual manifestations in Haskell: an explicit error value, or nontermination) |
| 2026-03-07 13:58:29 +0100 | <Guest89> | fair point |
| 2026-03-07 13:58:12 +0100 | <lambdabot> | *Exception: <<timeout>> |
| 2026-03-07 13:58:05 +0100 | <int-e> | > fix id |
| 2026-03-07 13:58:03 +0100 | <lambdabot> | undefined, called at <interactive>:3:1 in interactive:Ghci1 |
| 2026-03-07 13:58:03 +0100 | <lambdabot> | CallStack (from HasCallStack): |
| 2026-03-07 13:58:03 +0100 | <lambdabot> | *Exception: Prelude.undefined |
| 2026-03-07 13:58:02 +0100 | <int-e> | > undefined |
| 2026-03-07 13:57:54 +0100 | <int-e> | And for a lazy language, you can also have thunks whereever bottoms can go, so you can't unpack anything in those places. |
| 2026-03-07 13:57:27 +0100 | <Guest89> | I haven't really figured how you can even get bottom in practice |
| 2026-03-07 13:57:07 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-03-07 13:56:55 +0100 | <int-e> | But you can still have Y (bottom, bottom) |
| 2026-03-07 13:56:38 +0100 | <int-e> | if you have data X = X (Int,Int) and data Y = Y !(Int,Int) then the difference is that you can have an `X bottom` value that's distinct from bottom, but `Y bottom` is just bottom. |
| 2026-03-07 13:56:06 +0100 | <Guest89> | I will play around and see what changes |
| 2026-03-07 13:55:36 +0100 | <Leary> | Yes. |
| 2026-03-07 13:55:10 +0100 | <Guest89> | right, but bangs force a semantics change? |
| 2026-03-07 13:54:24 +0100 | <Leary> | `UNPACK` is only a hint for the compiler; it can't fundamentally change the semantics, which include the fields of `(,)` being lazy---that blocks any further unpacking. |
| 2026-03-07 13:54:20 +0100 | <int-e> | yes |
| 2026-03-07 13:54:07 +0100 | <Guest89> | does it just transform the constructor into another one with the same arity as the tuples? |
| 2026-03-07 13:53:38 +0100 | <Guest89> | so what does unpack do in this case? |
| 2026-03-07 13:53:19 +0100 | <Leary> | No, the data constructors. `data Uid = Uid !Int !Int`; `data Ptr = PtrLeaf !Bool | PtrNode !Uid`; etc. |
| 2026-03-07 13:51:34 +0100 | <Guest89> | I assumed the unpack itself made it strict |
| 2026-03-07 13:51:29 +0100 | <Guest89> | I presume you mean at a function level? |
| 2026-03-07 13:48:05 +0100 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) arandombit |
| 2026-03-07 13:46:08 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@62.45.136.136) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2026-03-07 13:45:36 +0100 | <Leary> | Guest89: All of your data is lazy, even `Uid`; `data Uid = Uid {-# UNPACK #-} !(Int, Int)` is essentially equivalent to `data Uid = Uid Int Int`. If you're not utilising that laziness, kill it with strictness annotations. |
| 2026-03-07 13:43:53 +0100 | wootehfoot | (~wootehfoo@user/wootehfoot) wootehfoot |
| 2026-03-07 13:39:11 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@62.45.136.136) merijn |
| 2026-03-07 13:36:52 +0100 | Tuplanolla | (~Tuplanoll@88-114-89-88.elisa-laajakaista.fi) Tuplanolla |
| 2026-03-07 13:29:55 +0100 | <Guest89> | if anyone else has any suggestions in the meantime, this is how my comparators are defined for the busiest functions https://paste.tomsmeding.com/jSnEEitE |
| 2026-03-07 13:28:20 +0100 | <Guest89> | darn |