Yes, agree. Thanks. But still this adds a coupling that I did not need in the SML versions. And in this case, the analysis is word oriented, so the algorithm is intrinsically tied to a dictionary.
------------------------------------------- Gregory Guthrie ------------------------------------------ > -----Original Message----- > From: Arlen Christian Mart Cuss [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 10:50 PM > To: Gregory Guthrie > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Haskell-Cafe Digest, Vol 93, Issue 58 > > > An option I suppose would be to read the dictionary at the top level, > > and then pass it all the way down to the analysis routine that uses > > it, but that exposes the details of how the analysis is done, and > > couples the top and bottom levels of the previously modular functions. > > It would seem to me that having the analysis routine do the I/O itself is > more coupling than > designing it to be datasource-agnostic! > > I'd expect it to be much neater to thread the data through the various > functions comprising > the analysing functions, perhaps monadically, as a part of its design; and > then to feed the > data in at a single entry point. Thus the entire analysis is pure. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
