2010/7/15 Alexey Karakulov <ankaraku...@gmail.com>: > I wonder if pattern matching could be less verbose. Maybe this sounds weird, > but here is example of what I mean: > >> type A = (Int, String) >> >> f :: String -> A -> A >> f s (i,s') = (i, s ++ s') >> >> data B = B Int String deriving Show >> >>g :: String -> B -> B >>g s (B i s') = B i $ s ++ s' > > Types A/B and functions f/g are quite similar: (x :: A) or (x :: B) means > that x contains some integer and string values, and f/g functions take some > string and prepend it to the string part of x. The code for f and g has the > same level of verbosity, but -- ta-dah! -- we can use arrows and define f in > a highly laconic manner: > >> import Control.Arrow >> f' :: String -> A -> A >> f' = second . (++) > > So my queastion is how I could define (g' :: String -> B -> B) in the same > way.
I guess it is short because you make use of second... so you can define second' for your B data type, or make B an instance of Arrow. Cheers, Thu _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe