On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 12:24 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote: > Chaddaï Fouché wrote: > > 2007/9/25, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> This is why I found it so surprising - and annoying - that you can't use > >> a 2-argument function in a point-free expression. > >> > >> For example, "zipWith (*)" expects two arguments, and yet > >> > >> sum . zipWith (*) > >> > >> fails to type-check. You just instead write > >> > >> \xs ys -> sum $ zipWith(*) xs ys > >> > >> > > > > (sum . zipWith (*)) xs ys > > == (sum (zipWith (*) xs)) ys > > > > so you try to apply sum :: [a] -> Int to a function (zipWith (*) xs) > > :: [a] -> [b], it can't work ! > > > > (sum.) . zipWith (*) > > works, but isn't the most pretty expression I have seen. > > > > I'm still puzzled as to why this breaks with my example, but works > perfectly with other people's examples... > > So you're saying that > > (f3 . f2 . f1) x y z ==> f3 (f2 (f1 x) y) z > > ? In that case, that would mean that > > (map . map) f xss ==> map (map f) xss > > which *just happens* to be what we want. But in the general case where > you want > > f3 (f2 (f1 x y z)) > > there's nothing you can do except leave point-free.
In effect, yes. As many others have pointed out, you *can* do this point-free (all of lambda calculus can be re-written using the functions s f g x = f x (g x) k x y = x (1)), but it's not a good idea. Good style in Haskell as in any other language is a matter of taste, not rules. jcc (1) http://www.madore.org/~david/programs/unlambda/ _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
