optimization of list comprehensions
Fri Mar 10 14:05:36 CET 2006
Sorry for the noise, the link I meant to include was, more specifically
Thomas Johnsson wrote:
> Hm yes, "small is beautiful" is true perhaps more often than one might
> perhaps a useful middle of the road approach would be to provide
> efficient looping implementation of the following pattern
> lists:foldl(fun(..pat...)-> ... expr.. end, Z, [ list
> comprehension....] )
> and also point that out in the documentation.
> As an example of "the whole shebang", ie a (purely!) functional
> language that has a loop construct, c.f. Id, see
> http://csg.csail.mit.edu/pubs/publications.html ,
> later included in pH (parallel Haskell).
> Accumulating array comprehensions, anyone?
> -- Thomas
> Mats Cronqvist wrote:
>> Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
>>> [...] If funs are not used when they are *appropriate*, then it isn't
>>> "perfectly fine" Erlang.
>> appropriateness is in the eye of the beholder.
>>> Remember, language features don't come free.
>>> *Someone* has to design them.
>>> *Someone* has to implement them.
>>> *Someone* has to document them.
>>> *Someone* has to revised training materials.
>>> This is more effort than you might think, so it had better have a
>>> high enough payoff. If it is you doing all these things, then it's
>>> entirely up to your judgement whether to do it. If you are asking
>>> other people to do them for you, you had better give them good reasons.
>> i'm well aware that new features don't come free. as a matter of
>> fact, i could find out exactly how much it would cost.
>> if i was certain that new notation would improve our product, i
>> would be having this discussion directly with OTP. as it is, i'm a
>> bit discouraged after noticing how little use of list comprehensions
>> there actually is.
More information about the erlang-questions