On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Thomas M. DuBuisson wrote:
Why is there no mapAccumL' (strict)? Just a library deficiency that we
can remedy or am I missing something?
The strictness in foldl' is needed to avoid that unevaluated computations
accumulate until the end of the list. In mapAccumL and
OK, so this is a fairly basic question about list processing.
Several times now, I have found myself wanting to process a list to
produce a new list. However, the way later elements are processed
depends on what the earlier elements are - in other words, this isn't a
simple map.
What is the
andrewcoppin:
OK, so this is a fairly basic question about list processing.
Several times now, I have found myself wanting to process a list to
produce a new list. However, the way later elements are processed
depends on what the earlier elements are - in other words, this isn't a
simple
Am Mittwoch, 11. Juni 2008 20:17 schrieb Andrew Coppin:
So it looks like this can be implemented as a fold or an unfold. But
neither way looks especially easy. Both of these patterns seem to be
more general than necessary; I only want to take 1 element of input and
produce 1 element of
Hey Andrew,
On 11 jun 2008, at 20:17, Andrew Coppin wrote:
According to the theory, anything that consumes a list and produces
a value is some kind of fold. [Assuming it traverses the list in a
sensible order!] So it looks like you could implement this as a
fold. But should that be a
Why is there no mapAccumL' (strict)? Just a library deficiency that we
can remedy or am I missing something?
Don Stewart wrote:
andrewcoppin:
OK, so this is a fairly basic question about list processing.
Several times now, I have found myself wanting to process a list to
produce a new
