Definitely I'll take this solution, I'm reading about Pointfree, I think it's
not that dificult to understand. And moreover it's the simpliest way to
write code.
Jón Fairbairn-2 wrote:
>
> Andrea Rossato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 04:16:55AM -0700, Carajillu wrote:
>> >
>> > Wow! I'm starting to love this languaje, and the people who uses it!:)
>> >
>>
>> You spoke too early. My code had a bug, a huge one...
>>
>> this is the right one:
>>
>> -- Replaces a wildcard in a list with the list given as the third
>> argument
>> substitute :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> [a] -> [a]
>> substitute e l1 l2= [c | c <- check_elem l1]
>> where check_elem [] = l1
>> check_elem (x:xs) = if x == e then (l2 ++ xs) else [x] ++
>> check_elem xs
>
>
> I think it's nicer to do it like this:
>
> substitute e l l'
> = concat (map subst_elem l)
> where subst_elem x
> | x == e = l'
> | otherwise = [x]
>
> since "subst_elem" has a more straightforward meaning than
> "check_elem", and the concatenation is handled by a well
> known standard function.
>
> Also, it would usually be more useful to have the argument
> to replace /with/ before the argument to replace /in/, so
> that ("substitute '*' "wurble") is a function that replaces
> all the '*'s in it's argument with "wurble"s.
>
> And if you do that, you can write it like this:
>
> subst e l'
> = concat . map subst_elem
> where subst_elem x
> | x == e = l'
> | otherwise = [x]
>
> --
> Jón Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Problems-interpreting-tf2290155.html#a6363827
Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
