I know this has been written about way too much, but I was wondering what
people thought about using 'liftM f' as opposed to '>>= return . f'. I
would probably have written Andrew's code using liftM, but I don't know if
one is necessarily better than the other. Does anyone have strong
thoughts on this?
--
Hal Daume III
"Computer science is no more about computers | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
than astronomy is about telescopes." -Dijkstra | www.isi.edu/~hdaume
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
> G'day all.
>
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 12:56:13PM -0700, Russell O'Connor wrote:
>
> > case (number g) of
> > Just n -> Just (show n)
> > Nothing ->
> > case (fraction g) of
> > Just n -> Just (show n)
> > Nothing ->
> > case (nimber g) of
> > Just n -> Just ("*"++(show n))
> > Nothing -> Nothing
>
> This isn't exactly the most beautiful way of doing it, but...
>
> (number g >>= return . show) `mplus`
> (fraction g >>= return . show) `mplus`
> (nimber g >>= return . ('*':) . show)
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew Bromage
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
