Control.Parallel.Strategies: definitions of rnf for most collections are poor
These all perform a lot of consing, which seems rather undesirable. It would be very nice indeed if they could be rebaked in terms of strict left folds. Unfortunately, all of the collections in question seem only to expose non-strict left folds publicly.
instance (NFData k, NFData a) => NFData (Data.Map.Map k a) where
rnf = rnf . Data.Map.toList
instance NFData a => NFData (Data.Set.Set a) where
rnf = rnf . Data.Set.toList
instance NFData a => NFData (Data.Tree.Tree a) where
rnf (Data.Tree.Node r f) = rnf r `seq` rnf f
instance NFData a => NFData (Data.IntMap.IntMap a) where
rnf = rnf . Data.IntMap.toList
instance NFData Data.IntSet.IntSet where
rnf = rnf . Data.IntSet.toListTrac metadata
| Trac field | Value |
|---|---|
| Version | 6.8.2 |
| Type | Bug |
| TypeOfFailure | OtherFailure |
| Priority | normal |
| Resolution | Unresolved |
| Component | libraries/base |
| Test case | |
| Differential revisions | |
| BlockedBy | |
| Related | |
| Blocking | |
| CC | |
| Operating system | Unknown |
| Architecture | Unknown |