Bulat wrote: > if you require several operations, you can pack them in tuple or > structure (really, tuple is a structure without field names)
How are we going to anticipate all possible bodies of a for-loop? By comparison, when we build a normal Haskell list, does the construction precisely mirror what we are going to *do* with each element? Fold the map then!!! > if you need fields/interfaces inheritance, then this method will not > work. but in 90% of cases it's enough. What to do for the other 10%? > in C++, creating classes is the > most useful method of structuring program, so it is used for any > problem - from very simple to most complex. when you translate such > thing to Haskell, it's better to see which concrete problem are solved > with help of classes, and not to emulate the classes itself (because > in this case you will write many unneeded code) Yes, but we ought to solve the shapes problem. The shapes example is in Bulat's 10% region. > only because it's C-like :) you just can't believe that Haskell > program can be 3-10 times smaller while keeping the same functionality > :))) But note that "same functionality" is one thing, having "separate compilation" and "program extensibility" too is another one. Ralf _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
