On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 16:56 -0500, Cale Gibbard wrote:
> On 04/02/2008, Philip Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I've always liked $ for this kind of code, if you want to keep the
> > arguments around:
> >
> >next xs = runCont $ sequence $ map Cont xs
> >
> > seems quite natural to m
On 04/02/2008, Philip Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've always liked $ for this kind of code, if you want to keep the
> arguments around:
>
>next xs = runCont $ sequence $ map Cont xs
>
> seems quite natural to me.
>
I'd probably write that as
nest xs = runCont . sequence . map Co
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:19:17PM +, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
It's a matter of taste. I prefer the function composition in this case.
It reads nicely as a pipeline.
(Hoping not to contribute to any flamage...)
I've always liked $ for this kind of code, if you want to keep the
argume
Hello Conor,
Saturday, February 2, 2008, 1:29:02 AM, you wrote:
>nest = ala Cont traverse id
> Third-order: it's a whole other order.
oh! i remember faces of my friends when i showed them something like
"sortOn snd . zip [0..]". probably i have the same face now :)))
--
Best regards,
Bu
derek.a.elkins:
> On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 16:48 -0500, Dan Licata wrote:
> > Not to start a flame war or religious debate, but I don't think that
> > eta-expansions should be considered bad style. I realize that
> > composition-style is good for certain types of reasoning, but fully
> > eta-expanded
Folks
On 1 Feb 2008, at 22:19, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
It's a matter of taste. I prefer the function composition in this
case.
It reads nicely as a pipeline.
-- Lennart
Dan L :
On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Dan Licata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not to start a flame war or religi
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 16:48 -0500, Dan Licata wrote:
> Not to start a flame war or religious debate, but I don't think that
> eta-expansions should be considered bad style. I realize that
> composition-style is good for certain types of reasoning, but fully
> eta-expanded code has an important leg
It's a matter of taste. I prefer the function composition in this case.
It reads nicely as a pipeline.
-- Lennart
On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Dan Licata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not to start a flame war or religious debate, but I don't think that
> eta-expansions should be considered
Not to start a flame war or religious debate, but I don't think that
eta-expansions should be considered bad style. I realize that
composition-style is good for certain types of reasoning, but fully
eta-expanded code has an important legibility advantage: you can tell
the shape of its type just by
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 00:09 -0500, Cale Gibbard wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Today on #haskell, resiak was asking about a clean way to write the
> function which allocates an array of CStrings using withCString and
> withArray0 to produce a new with* style function. I came up with the
> following:
>
> nes
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Cale Gibbard wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Today on #haskell, resiak was asking about a clean way to write the
> function which allocates an array of CStrings using withCString and
> withArray0 to produce a new with* style function. I came up with the
> following:
>
> nest :: [(r -> a)
Hello,
Today on #haskell, resiak was asking about a clean way to write the
function which allocates an array of CStrings using withCString and
withArray0 to produce a new with* style function. I came up with the
following:
nest :: [(r -> a) -> a] -> ([r] -> a) -> a
nest xs = runCont (sequence (ma
12 matches
Mail list logo
