With a recursive function of more than one argument, does it make sense to keep the arguments that tend to remain constant closer to the front?
I.e. is this: > interp :: a -> [a] -> [a] > interp y [] = [] > interp y (x:[]) = x:[] > interp y (x:xs) = x:y:interp y xs any better than this: > interp :: [a] -> a -> [a] > interp [] y = [] > interp (x:[]) y = x:[] > interp (x:xs) y = x:y:interp xs y Will any implementations notice interp y x:xs calls interp y, and keep some sort of interp y partial application around? (I don't really expect any effect like this, but even if there were one, I would expect consideration like the fact that "interp constant" is a useful function, while "\x -> interp x const-list" is not so useful to outweigh any such effect. Happily, they don't conflict here. If there is no effect like this, would it make any sense to try to get something similar by hand, and can this actually be done?) -- Aaron Denney -><- _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
