matt hellige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], (bcc: Chris Angus/Lawson)
Subject: Re: Design patterns in Haskell
> size. while there's really no substitute for experience, i really
> believe we could benefit from some patterns.
There was a
> I spent an awful lot of time doing a brain-dump into these pages and am a
> bit dissapointed that they seemed to have dissappeared without
> trace. Were these archived anywhere
Yes, they are in fact still there (they are all in RCS). The problem is, the Wiki is
broken. I'm going to try and r
I shamelessly copy from the abstract of [1]:
We contend that design patterns can be an effective means of
consolidating and communicating program construction expertise for
functional programming just as they have proven to be in
object-oriented programming. One might suppose that the powerful
ab
> size. while there's really no substitute for experience, i really
> believe we could benefit from some patterns.
There was a list of design patterns for Haskell on the Wiki (back in
the days when it worked):
http://haskell.org/wiki/wiki?CommonHaskellIdioms
--KW 8-)
--
Keith Wansbrough <[EMAIL
[Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
> Furthermore, design patterns come with a set of informal hints about when and
> where to apply the pattern. The notion of HOF is, of course, completely
> neutral about this, except insofar as the type system forces you to provide a
> HOF where a function i
Andrew J Bromage wrote (on 03-12-02 09:52 +1100):
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 08:26:06AM +0100, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
>
> > well I love design patterns, it's just that in Haskell-land
> > they are called higher-order functions, or polymorphic functions, etc.
>
> Can I safely translate that as "
