Should dfs be lazy?
Open
Graph
performance
- Dominant language
- Haskell
- Stars
- 355
- Forks
- 194
- Avg merge
- 3d 4h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 4
Description
The original paper we base `Data.Graph` on expects *lazy* `ST`, but we use *strict* `ST`. Depending how the result is consumed, lazier might be better. For ordered traversals (producing lists rather than trees/forests), we can use strict `ST` along with `unsafeInterleaveST`, which may be faster.
Contributor guide
Assessment
This issue has not been assessed yet.