Hi,
Consider the following data structure, effectively
of type [[(Int,Int)]]:
(2,5) (1,3) (2,0)
(2,5) (1,2) (1,1) (1,0)
(2,5) (3,1)
(1,5) (2,4) (2,0)
(1,5) (1,4) (1,3) (1,1) (1,0)
(1,5) (1,4) (2,2) (1,0)
(1,5) (1,4) (1,2) (2,1)
(1,5) (2,3) (1,2) (1,0)
(1,5) (2,3) (2,1)
(1,5) (1,3) (2,2) (1,1)
On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 16:52, Hal Daume III wrote:
I would consider using a prefix trie. Unfortunately, such a structure is
not built in to Haskell.
Thanks for this! It seems that this kind of data structure is what I
am looking for.
[begin aside]
It seems a pity that one needs to give
On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 17:50, Dylan Thurston wrote:
This is the same as one way of representing search trees, called a
trie. Two representations in Haskell are:
data Trie a = Trie [(a, Trie a)]
I touched on the following in my response to Hal Daume's email, but it's
probably worth asking
doing something wrongly, or is there a good reason why
where isn't allowed to be used in this way?
Thanks,
Mark.
--
Dr Mark H Phillips
Research Analyst (Mathematician)
AUSTRICS - smarter scheduling solutions - www.austrics.com
Level 2, 50 Pirie Street, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia
Phone +61 8
Thanks for the explanation!
On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 19:07, Brian Boutel wrote:
You can't do this because where clauses are not part of the expression
syntax. If they were, expressions like
let a=b in c where d=e
or
if a then b else c where d=e
whould be ambiguous, unless you
On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 01:26, Hamilton Richards wrote:
You can get the effect you're after by using let-expressions:
functn :: Int - Int
functn i
| i5 = let t = functn (i-2) in t * i
| i0 = let t = functn (i-1) in t * i
| otherwise = 1
'where' is part
the unary - has
weak binding?
--
Dr Mark H Phillips
Research Analyst (Mathematician)
AUSTRICS - smarter scheduling solutions - www.austrics.com
Level 2, 50 Pirie Street, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia
Phone +61 8 8226 9850
Fax +61 8 8231 4821
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED
= (m,p)
| mq = (p,m)
| otherwise = (p,q)
where
(p,q) = maxpenmax ms
How do I work out which is best to use? Is there
one clear winner, or will they each have pros and
cons?
Thanks,
Mark.
--
Dr Mark H Phillips
Research Analyst (Mathematician)
AUSTRICS - smarter scheduling
20180
your penultimax2 746610344
your penultimax3 860513782
Hope this helps (or at least, is entertaining :-)
Yes. Thanks!
Mark.
--
Dr Mark H Phillips
Research Analyst (Mathematician)
AUSTRICS - smarter scheduling solutions - www.austrics.com
Level 2, 50
. Is there documentation on List.hs, along the lines
of the A Tour of the Haskell Prelude?
Thanks,
Mark.
--
Dr Mark H Phillips
Research Analyst (Mathematician)
AUSTRICS - smarter scheduling solutions - www.austrics.com
Level 2, 50 Pirie Street, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia
Phone +61 8 8226 9850
Fax
.
--
Dr Mark H Phillips
Research Analyst (Mathematician)
AUSTRICS - smarter scheduling solutions - www.austrics.com
Level 2, 50 Pirie Street, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia
Phone +61 8 8226 9850
Fax +61 8 8231 4821
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Haskell
Thanks to all the people who responded to my question!
The solution from Wolfgang Jeltsch:
(f.).g
was what I was after. But the other responses were
useful also.
Thanks!
Mark.
On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 09:57, Dr Mark H Phillips wrote:
Hi,
Hopefully this is a simple question. I am wanting
Hi Wolfgang,
Thanks for your informative reply. At first I didn't
understand it, but a search on StateT lead me to the
paper Monad Transformers and Modular Interpreters by
Liang, Hudak and Jones, which clarified some of the
ideas for me.
The state transformer approach seems to have
advantageous
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 22:58, Graham Klyne wrote:
I'm not an expert in this, but I think what you are proposing is possible,
to a point, possibly assuming that your monads have associated functions to
combine and separate the monadic parts.
Thanks for the below illustration of how this
14 matches
Mail list logo
