> the value grows exponentially with LOC (lines of code) count. :)
Exponentially? Now I'm missing something...
Your way has 156 chars:
data SomeDataType = SomeDataType { sdtField1 :: SDT_Field1Type, sdtField2 ::
> SDT_Field2Type, sdtField3 :: SDT_Field2Type, sdtField3 = f sdtField1
> sdtField2}
This way has 162 chars:
data SomeDataType = SomeDataType { sdtField1 :: SDT_Field1Type,
sdtField2 :: SDT_Field2Type}
sdtField3 :: SDT_Field2Type
sdtField3 = f <$> sdtField1 <*> sdtField2
This adds 6 characters per dependent deconstructor function. As a
fraction of total LOC, this is insignificant.
Belka wrote:
Thank you, for your reply, Dan! :)
You don't really need this inline in the record syntax, do you?
In fact, that was the point. To enclose direct functional dependants into
the record declaration. To achieve better pithiness - it's valuable, and the
value grows exponentially with LOC (lines of code) count. :)
sdtField3 sdt = f <$> sdtField1 <*> sdtField2
Doesn't look much better than my "under" function (t `under` f = \x y -> (x
f) `t` (y f)). What did I miss?
I believe, there are good reasons to use Control.Applicative for lots
purposes, but unfortunately, yet haven't had time to try it in my practice.
Belka
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
