<commit_before>TODO
====

* performance

* parse predicate signatures for tuples 
* predicate-aliases 
* Blogging 
* benchmarks: Data.List (foldr)
* self-invariants        (tests/todo/maybe4.hs)
* benchmarks: Data.List (foldr) -- needs sets
* benchmarks: Data.Bytestring
* benchmarks: stackset-core
* benchmarks: Data.Text
* benchmarks: mcbrides stack machine

* remove `toType` and  generalize `typeSort` to work for all RefTypables

Performance: Collateral Damage
==============================

- Removed EDat: `ordCon`, `dataConReft` : find way to get this information WITHOUT hardwiring.



Performance
===========

Use Map/LambdaEval to find where bottleneck in Hs <---------------HEREHEREHEREHERE
??? (foxed)

        1. Data.HashMap.Strict/Data.HashSet.Strict [instead of Data.Map/Data.Set]

      & 2. Compact Constraints
        
        3. Remove all dependence on everywhere/everything
            > c.f. Tidy.hs

- Majority of remaining 900s in haskell land? doing what? serialize/parse?
        - time liquid benchmarks/esop2013-submission/Base.hs > log.base 2>&1
          user = 24m ML = 5m
        - time liquid tests/pos/LambdaEval.hs 
          user = 27s ML = 10s
        - time liquid tests/pos/Map.hs 
          user = 34s ML = 9s

- Or is it the use of Dynamic/Data to traverse and sanitize constraints?

- Serializing to .fq is WAY slow ?
        - Compact FQ encoding: shared environment binders
<commit_msg>see TODO<commit_after>TODO
====

* performance/collateral damage

* parse predicate signatures for tuples 
* predicate-aliases 
* Blogging 
* benchmarks: Data.List (foldr)
* self-invariants        (tests/todo/maybe4.hs)
* benchmarks: Data.List (foldr) -- needs sets
* benchmarks: Data.Bytestring
* benchmarks: stackset-core
* benchmarks: Data.Text
* benchmarks: mcbrides stack machine

* remove `toType` and  generalize `typeSort` to work for all RefTypables

Performance: Collateral Damage
==============================

- Removed EDat: `ordCon`, `dataConReft` : find way to get this information WITHOUT hardwiring.

Performance
===========

        1. Data.HashMap.Strict/Data.HashSet.Strict [instead of Data.Map/Data.Set]
        2. Remove all dependence on everywhere/everything <---------------HEREHEREHEREHERE
            > Tidy.hs
        3. Compact Constraints
        

- Majority of remaining 900s in haskell land? doing what? serialize/parse?
        - time liquid benchmarks/esop2013-submission/Base.hs > log.base 2>&1
          user = 24m ML = 5m
        - time liquid tests/pos/LambdaEval.hs 
          user = 27s ML = 10s
        - time liquid tests/pos/Map.hs 
          user = 34s ML = 9s

- Or is it the use of Dynamic/Data to traverse and sanitize constraints?

- Serializing to .fq is WAY slow ?
        - Compact FQ encoding: shared environment binders

{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.12179487179487179, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01638176638176638, 'mean_word_length': 2.8426812585499315, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 5, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 9, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
{'dir': 'git-commits-cleaned', 'id': '1123744', 'n_tokens_mistral': 908, 'n_tokens_neox': 827, 'n_words': 268}