Well, my goal when I first wrote it was to see if I could write reverse without calling any other functions. I did realize that it was really bad. :)
-- Lennart On 9/23/07, Felipe Almeida Lessa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/23/07, Lennart Augustsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If we're discussing bad versions of reverse, don't forget this one: > > > > rev [] = [] > > rev (x:xs) = > > case rev xs of > > [] -> [x] > > y:ys -> y : rev (x : rev ys) > > > > It's different from most versions of reverse because it doesn't use any > > auxiliarry functions. > > It's also extremely inefficient. > > Wow! I'm amazed, this function runs in exponential time! How does one > actually comes to write it without smelling something wrong with those > recursive calls? > > -- > Felipe. > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
