On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:19:17PM +, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
It's a matter of taste. I prefer the function composition in this case.
It reads nicely as a pipeline.
(Hoping not to contribute to any flamage...)
I've always liked $ for this kind of code, if you want to keep the
On 04/02/2008, Philip Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always liked $ for this kind of code, if you want to keep the
arguments around:
next xs = runCont $ sequence $ map Cont xs
seems quite natural to me.
I'd probably write that as
nest xs = runCont . sequence . map Cont $ xs
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 16:56 -0500, Cale Gibbard wrote:
On 04/02/2008, Philip Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always liked $ for this kind of code, if you want to keep the
arguments around:
next xs = runCont $ sequence $ map Cont xs
seems quite natural to me.
I'd
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Cale Gibbard wrote:
Hello,
Today on #haskell, resiak was asking about a clean way to write the
function which allocates an array of CStrings using withCString and
withArray0 to produce a new with* style function. I came up with the
following:
nest :: [(r - a) - a] -
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 00:09 -0500, Cale Gibbard wrote:
Hello,
Today on #haskell, resiak was asking about a clean way to write the
function which allocates an array of CStrings using withCString and
withArray0 to produce a new with* style function. I came up with the
following:
nest ::
Not to start a flame war or religious debate, but I don't think that
eta-expansions should be considered bad style. I realize that
composition-style is good for certain types of reasoning, but fully
eta-expanded code has an important legibility advantage: you can tell
the shape of its type just
It's a matter of taste. I prefer the function composition in this case.
It reads nicely as a pipeline.
-- Lennart
On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Dan Licata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to start a flame war or religious debate, but I don't think that
eta-expansions should be considered bad
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 16:48 -0500, Dan Licata wrote:
Not to start a flame war or religious debate, but I don't think that
eta-expansions should be considered bad style. I realize that
composition-style is good for certain types of reasoning, but fully
eta-expanded code has an important
Folks
On 1 Feb 2008, at 22:19, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
It's a matter of taste. I prefer the function composition in this
case.
It reads nicely as a pipeline.
-- Lennart
Dan L :
On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Dan Licata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to start a flame war or
derek.a.elkins:
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 16:48 -0500, Dan Licata wrote:
Not to start a flame war or religious debate, but I don't think that
eta-expansions should be considered bad style. I realize that
composition-style is good for certain types of reasoning, but fully
eta-expanded code
Hello Conor,
Saturday, February 2, 2008, 1:29:02 AM, you wrote:
nest = ala Cont traverse id
Third-order: it's a whole other order.
oh! i remember faces of my friends when i showed them something like
sortOn snd . zip [0..]. probably i have the same face now :)))
--
Best regards,
Bulat
Hello,
Today on #haskell, resiak was asking about a clean way to write the
function which allocates an array of CStrings using withCString and
withArray0 to produce a new with* style function. I came up with the
following:
nest :: [(r - a) - a] - ([r] - a) - a
nest xs = runCont (sequence (map
12 matches
Mail list logo
