Hudak, Paul schrieb: >> In the meantime I am more and more moving to Arrows or Arrow like >> structures. On the one hand it is often the more appropriate data >> structure since it models exactly the causality of signal processes and >> has much less risk for memory leaks (compared to lazy lists). On the >> other hand it is sad, that Arrows often need more type tricks in order >> to work and that with arrows I am forced more or less to pointfree >> style. > > I almost always use one of the arrow preprocessor syntaxes, which at least > give the illusion of not being point-free. > >> I like pointfree style for simple chains of operations but I do >> not like it for diamond-like graphs, i.e. re-use the result of one >> signal process multiple times. > > But this seems easy using arrow syntax -- am I missing something?
I think you cannot translate a functional expression like mix x (delay x) literally to a line of arrow syntax, that is, without introducing a variable name for the output of (delay x), unless I am missing something. _______________________________________________ haskell-art mailing list haskell-art@lurk.org http://lists.lurk.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-art
