G'day all.
I wrote:
> I think you could. What you need to convince a strict programmer of is
> that laziness gives you modularity. The Graham Hutton Sudoku solver is
> a nice example, but it'd be cool if we had a similar example that was
> less cheesy than Sudoku.
OK, it's not pretty, but this is diff(1) in 120 lines:
http://andrew.bromage.org/darcs/diff/
It illustrates:
- Lazy evaluation (dynamic programming, lazy I/O, infinite lists)
- Function pipelining with (.) and ($)
- Monads
- Immutable arrays
- List comprehensions
- Algebraic data types
- Type-safe type synonyms (newtype)
- Fancy newtype deriving (Num)
- Smart constructors
- Pattern matching with at-patterns
- Lambda expressions
- Operator sections
- More besides
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
