On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 03:48:23PM +0000, Jorge Adriano Aires wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 12:47:58PM +0300, Serge D. Mechveliani wrote: > > > foldlWhile :: (a -> b -> a) -> (a -> Bool) -> a -> [b] -> a > > > foldlWhile f p a bs = > > > case > > > (bs, p a) > > > of > > > ([], _ ) -> a > > > (_, False) -> a > > > (b:bs', _ ) -> foldlWhile f p (f a b) bs' > > > > Why not just > > foldlWhile f p a bs = takeWhile p $ foldl f a bs > > Quite different. The former stops a foldl when the accumulating parameter no > longer satisfies p, the later assumes the accumulating parameter of the foldl > is a list, and takes the portion of the list that does satisfy p.
Yes, this was a mistake.
> The following is closer to the original, but doesn't work when the whole list
> is folded (i.e., p always satisfied):
> foldlWhile f p a = head . dropWhile p . scanl f a
Serge's version returns the last 'a' that satisfies 'p', while yours
returns the first 'a' that does not satisfy 'p'. This should be an
equivalent version:
foldlWhile f p a = tail . takeWhile p . scanl f a
But what about the version with Maybe? There ought to be a concise way
to write that too.
Peace,
Dylan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
