The only "match" I've coded to date is for the very basic monad "do". I think this is a pretty close similarity:
program=: (+/ % #) @: (5 6 9 11 8 "_) do=: ^ 1 :'u$0' program do 7.8 But, as you said, easy cases are easy because differences in implementation details between languages can be ignored. So far my favorite piece on Haskell is the article by Shannon Behrens that begins here: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/9096 It concludes here: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/9242 I'll look at the one you recommended. -- T On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It seems to me that any small example could be implemented > easily but large examples would either rapidly devolve into > scalar oriented code and be quite inefficient, or involve > a complete change in architecture where you implement > something that accomplishes the same purpose but > without using Haskell's implicit mechanisms. (This is why > the small examples tend to be easy -- extracting their purpose > and ignoring their mechanisms is generally not too hard.) > > Anyways, "a gentle introduction to haskell" seems > to do a good job of covering the underlying assumptions > implicit in the notation. > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
