On Mar 10, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Ketil Malde wrote:
I think it is better style to avoid this kind of one-off named
values. I much prefer:
then Golds ++show (gold s g)++...
For some reason, this is a style isse that doesn't get much attention
At the end of the Section on function
Maybe it's just me, but I think composition chain is MUCH easier to read.
When readning, I'd probably transform the last version to the previous one by
hand, just to make it more comprehensible.
Sebastian Fischer wrote:
On Mar 10, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Ketil Malde wrote:
I think it is better
Miguel Mitrofanov miguelim...@yandex.ru writes:
Maybe it's just me, but I think composition chain is MUCH easier to read.
I definitely agree.
[Cited from Learn You a Haskell for Great Good]
oddSquareSum :: Integer
oddSquareSum = sum . takeWhile (1) . filter odd . map (^2) $
On 10 March 2010 11:21, Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org wrote:
[Cited from Learn You a Haskell for Great Good]
oddSquareSum :: Integer
oddSquareSum = sum . takeWhile (1) . filter odd . map (^2) $ [1..]
To me, the first one is very clear, and exposes the function as what it
is: a
Colin Adams colinpaulad...@googlemail.com writes:
Named values are just like comments, which IMO also should be kept to a
bare minimum. A bit tongue in cheek: If you need a name to understand
what a function does, or a comment to understand how it does it, then
your code is too complicated.
On Mar 10, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Ketil Malde wrote:
Introducing names means that I need to keep the temporary
definitions in my
head, and I think takeWhile (1) is as clear as it can get. And
while a name can be misleading (belowLimit is a boolean, no?) or flat
out wrong, the definition has
Am Mittwoch 10 März 2010 13:03:59 schrieb Ketil Malde:
never introduce names if it increases the
size of your program. (Corrolary: don't name things that aren't
referred to at least twice)
Objection!
If the final result of your function is a combination of a handful or two
of long (and
Hello all
Algorithmically oddSquareSum is a bit below par though...
oddSquareSum :: Integer
oddSquareSum = sum . takeWhile (1) . filter odd . map (^2) $ [1..]
Why filter out the evens after generating them?
oos1 :: Integer
oss1 = sum . takeWhile (1) $ map (^2) odds
where odds
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Tetley
stephen.tet...@gmail.com wrote:
where odds = iterate (+2) 1
Or odds = [1,3..]
--Max
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Hi Max
Nice! - I didn't know about that syntax.
PS I should have said
Why generate the evens only to filter them out?
On 10 March 2010 13:57, Max Rabkin max.rab...@gmail.com wrote:
[Snip]
Or odds = [1,3..]
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Sebastian Fischer s...@informatik.uni-kiel.de writes:
I do not agree that introducing names locally for compositions is
*always* a bad idea, even if used only once.
Well, of course I do that all the time too. :-)
(Choosing names that are misleading or flat out wrong is of course
always a
Am Mittwoch 10 März 2010 14:53:32 schrieb Stephen Tetley:
Hello all
Algorithmically oddSquareSum is a bit below par though...
oddSquareSum :: Integer
oddSquareSum = sum . takeWhile (1) . filter odd . map (^2) $
[1..]
Why filter out the evens after generating them?
oos1 ::
Stephen Tetley stephen.tet...@gmail.com writes:
oddSquareSum :: Integer
oddSquareSum = sum . takeWhile (1) . filter odd . map (^2) $ [1..]
Why filter out the evens after generating them?
In other words:
sum . takeWhile (1) . filter odd . map (^2) $ [1..]
Since odd (x^2) = odd x:
Ketil Malde wrote:
Also, good names are harder than they sound: I don't think
'belowLimit' is a good name for 'takeWhile (1)', for instance.
I certainly couldn't guess what it was for without looking at the
implementation, which kind of defeats the purpose of names for
improving code
Hi, i am getting an error when trying to compile this part of my program, its
my first time using haskell and as lovely as it is it didn't give me very
much to go on in the error message!
codescore :: String - String - String
score [s] [] = false
score [s] [g] =
if valid 4 g
2010/3/9 boblettoj bobletto...@msn.com:
Hi, i am getting an error when trying to compile this part of my program, its
my first time using haskell and as lovely as it is it didn't give me very
much to go on in the error message!
codescore :: String - String - String
score [s] [] = false
Thats because you can't put a where in a then clause. Move the
where stuff to the end of the function.
On 09/03/10 19:04, boblettoj wrote:
Hi, i am getting an error when trying to compile this part of my program, its
my first time using haskell and as lovely as it is it didn't give me very
On 9 mrt 2010, at 20:04, boblettoj wrote:
Hi, i am getting an error when trying to compile this part of my program, its
my first time using haskell and as lovely as it is it didn't give me very
much to go on in the error message!
codescore :: String - String - String
score [s] [] =
On 09.03.2010 20:04, boblettoj wrote:
score :: String - String - String
score [s] [] = false
score [s] [g] =
if valid 4 g
then (s1 ++ s2 ++ s3 ++ s4) where
s1 = Golds
s2 = show (gold s g)
s3 = , Silvers
s4 = show
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:42:44PM +0100, Sebastian Hungerecker wrote:
On 09.03.2010 20:04, boblettoj wrote:
score :: String - String - String
score [s] [] = false
score [s] [g] =
if valid 4 g
then (s1 ++ s2 ++ s3 ++ s4) where
s1 = Golds
s2 = show
Seems like a good time to mention the Maybe monad looks like it would be a
good fit here.
score :: String - String - Maybe String
score s [] = Nothing
score s g =
if valid 4 g
then let s1 = Golds
s2 = show (gold s g)
s3 = , Silvers
s4 = show (silver s g)
S. Doaitse Swierstra doai...@cs.uu.nl writes:
then (s1 ++ s2 ++ s3 ++ s4) where
s1 = Golds
s2 = show (gold s g)
s3 = , Silvers
s4 = show (silver s g)
If you want to keep the definitions local to the expression you should write
22 matches
Mail list logo
