"Brent Yorgey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, (:) has type a -> [a] -> [a], so a function corresponding to > (:) for Hughes lists should have type > > foo :: a -> H a -> H a > > [...] > I think the key sentence from the paper is this: "by > representing a list xs as the function (xs ++) that appends this list > to another list that has still to be supplied." If you understand > that sentence, then you can understand why [] is id and (++) is (.). > Yes, I did.
They key was not thinking that : has type (:) :: a -> a -> [a] , or, put differently, beat the lisp out of me, thanks. The problem is merely that Haskell and lisp are too similar in a much too different way. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying, hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe