I don't think the collection type (a,b) is best thought of as a loop. Neither is a (non-trivial) tree.
On 6/20/07, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Derek Elkins wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 18:49 -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: > >> Haskell is, in many ways, a descendant of Lisp. This does tend to >> lead to lists being *the* collection type, in my experience: sure, >> others get used, but lists are the ones you see in examples and such. >> > > Not in my experience. Certainly lists are used all over the place*, but > I rarely see them abused. Also, "lists" aren't lists in Lisp, they're > more akin to rose-trees (or going the other way, there are only pairs in > Lisp). > http://xkcd.com/c224.html > In practice, almost all Haskell programs use custom defined algebraic > data types which are usually tree like. Declaring and using data types > is easier in Haskell than it is in almost any other language. > True... > * As others have mentioned, lists represent loops and loops are > extremely common in programming in general. > Um... surely *every* collection type represents a loop? _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
