On 2007-09-25, Philippa Cowderoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Lennart Augustsson wrote: > >> It's reasonably easy to read. >> But you could make it more readable. Type signatures, naming the first >> lambda... >> > > It might be reasonable to define something like mapMatrix that happens to > be map . map, too. Along with at least a type synonym for matrices.
Yes, that's a good idea. Because it lets you change from the often annoying list-of-lists implementation to something more reasonable for e.g. transpose, as recently mentioned. > Name domain constructs rather than expecting people to reconstruct > them from their implementations, in other words. Right. But a list-of-lists isn't a terribly specific domain construct. When it's used without further semantics, I think map . map is the best translation of intent. -- Aaron Denney -><- _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
