On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Daniil Elovkov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Felipe Lessa wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Felipe Lessa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Edsko de Vries [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So then the question becomes: what *is* the
Hi,
I think Huet's Zipper is intended to solve this sort of problem.
data Path = Top | BranchL Path Tree | BranchR Tree Path
type Zipper = (Path, Tree)
openZipper :: Tree - Zipper
openZipper t = (Top, t)
Conceptually the zipper is a tree with one subtree selected. You can
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Edsko de Vries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Huet's Zipper is intended to solve this sort of problem.
data Path = Top | BranchL Path Tree | BranchR Tree Path
type Zipper = (Path, Tree)
openZipper :: Tree - Zipper
openZipper t =
Hi,
Thanks to Miguel for pointing out my silly error. So at least my
understanding of tail recursion is correct :) So then the question
becomes: what *is* the best way to write this function? One version I
can think of is
ecount :: [Tree] - Integer - Integer
ecount [] acc =
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Edsko de Vries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So then the question becomes: what *is* the best way to write this function?
I guess it would be simpler to have the counter on the data type and a
smart branch constructor:
data Tree = Leaf Integer | Branch Integer Tree
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Felipe Lessa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Edsko de Vries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So then the question becomes: what *is* the best way to write this
function?
I guess it would be simpler to have the counter on the data type and
Felipe Lessa wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Felipe Lessa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Edsko de Vries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So then the question becomes: what *is* the best way to write this function?
I guess it would be simpler to have the counter on
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 00:10 +0400, Daniil Elovkov wrote:
Felipe Lessa wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Felipe Lessa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Edsko de Vries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So then the question becomes: what *is* the best way to write this
