[...] it's just a pleasure to see all those one-line definitions
and feel how power the language should be to allow such cool things.
It is indeed. I find these explicit definitions often much more
instructive than purely implicit definitions. But, call me a nitpicker,
some of the definitions are still a bit longish for my taste.
For example:
break :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> ([a],[a])
break p xs
= span
<http://undergraduate.csse.uwa.edu.au/units/230.301/lectureNotes/tourofprelude.html#span>
p' xs
where
p' x = not
<http://undergraduate.csse.uwa.edu.au/units/230.301/lectureNotes/tourofprelude.html#not>
(p x)
could be written as:
break p = span (not . p)
or:
and xs = foldr
<http://undergraduate.csse.uwa.edu.au/units/230.301/lectureNotes/tourofprelude.html#foldr>
(&&) True xs
as:
and = foldr
<http://undergraduate.csse.uwa.edu.au/units/230.301/lectureNotes/tourofprelude.html#foldr>
(&&) True
While the second case is pure nitpicking, I find that the point-free
definition is much easier to read in the first case. Any reason to use
the point-wise notation there? Is it considered to be easier to read or
understand?
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
