Hello Tim,
Wednesday, September 13, 2006, 10:48:37 PM, you wrote:
> I would like to add to this. The previous loop runs the code
> once independantly for each item in the list. Sometimes you want
> to carry state through the loop:
all this can be easily implemented by programmer himself.
Hello Michael,
Thursday, September 14, 2006, 12:44:37 AM, you wrote:
> Or, what about using ListT to combine it with IO, eliminating the need for
> two separate `do' blocks?
according to my experience, in most cases we need two do blocks just
because outer one contains more code after inner one
At Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:24:39 +0400,
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> because REAL code is somewhat larger than examples. try to rewrite the
> following:
>
> directory_blocks <- (`mapM` splitBy (opt_group_dir command)
> files_to_archive)
> ( \filesInOneDirectory -> do
> datablocks <- (`ma
Hello Udo,
Wednesday, September 13, 2006, 12:53:38 PM, you wrote:
>> main = do
>>args <- getArgs
>>flip mapM_ args $ \arg ->
>> flip mapM_ [1..3] $ \n ->
>>putStrLn $ show n ++ ") " ++ arg
> Or even:
> main = do
> args <- getArgs
> putStr $ unlines [ show n ++ ") "
Hello Henning,
Wednesday, September 13, 2006, 1:12:35 PM, you wrote:
> Adding sugar or using Template Haskell for such a simple task is a bit
> unreasonable. I think Tim should use mapM a little bit and then he will
> probably need no longer a special syntax.
i disagree. lack of good syntax make
