On 10/26/07, Brent Yorgey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In the end it looks to me like you're probably better off > just implementing traverse directly as you have done, although perhaps > someone will find a better way.
Beginner's luck. ;-) I see the unfold similarity, but yes, it doesn't seem a good fit here. > I will note, however, that the last few lines of traverse can be written > more simply as: > Just v -> liftM (v:) . valve . traverse $ (\db -> nextKey db v) > or even > Just v -> liftM (v:) . valve . traverse . flip nextKey $ v > > Perhaps that's going too far for your taste... Not at all -- it's terse but the data flow is clear. Thanks very much, Graham _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
