this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
Haskell
6 readers
1 users here now
**The Haskell programming language community.** Daily news and info about all things Haskell related: practical stuff, theory, types, libraries, jobs, patches, releases, events and conferences and more... ### Links - Get Started with Haskell
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The code looks very clean! Perhaps you could add version bounds in your cabal file.
I also saw this:
Which could be written as:
I also see:
Which I would rewrite for a bit more safety
Also, note that in this case laziness might do unexpected things. The contents of the vault will only be evaluated once you actually ask for the values. You might want to use strict fields for it like so:
But that's not enough, because this will only force the first element (more precisely the first cons-cell). To truly force all values in the list of secrets you'd have to chose another data type. Unfortunately, there's not really any really popular strict vector type. The simplest fix is probably just to do the forcing of evaluation yourself like so:
Where
$!!
is fromControl.DeepSeq
from thedeepseq
package.Thx a lot for your detailed feedback. I already heard about bang notation once, but forgot about it. I think I do understand how laziness works, but I can't understand why it'd be bad if Vault gets loaded into memory the 1st time it's needed. Does GHC split the parsing into multiple operations because
salt
is used a little earlier thansecrets
?It's not that the vault only gets loaded into memory the 1st time it is needed, what will happen is that the secrets will be read into memory in their raw form and only decoded on-demand. So if you only access the first secret, then it will only decode the first secret and not the rest. Haskell's laziness is very granular like that. In this case it indeed is not that big of a deal, because it probably won't use a lot more memory, but I'd still consider it a code smell.