On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 02:46:04PM +0000, Graham Klyne wrote: > If your calculation really needs to update the cache state as it goes > along, then I agree that it needs to be run in the state monad. But even > then, I'd be inclined to look for sub-calculations that can be evaluated as > ordinary functions.
I think I do need to update the cache state, though I do think I could still split the function into 2 mutually recursive functions (both returning the state monad) as you suggest, which would at least make the code clearer. > Anyway, I think I've probably added enough noise to this debate. Whatever > approach you may use, have fun! Thanks for your help. - Joe _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
