> [snip: parser and interpreter for a little expression language] > > however an experienced haskell programmer might realize the data > structure is not needed and just write > > [snip: combined parser/interpreter for same language] > > by getting rid of these needless intermediate data structures (something > you learn to do intuitivly as you use haskell), one reduces the chances > for naming conflicts.
I don't think I agree with that at all. John Hughes' "Why Functional Programming Matters" makes it very clear how much power you gain from adding intermediate data structures. I personally find them extremely valuable in compilers and interpreters because they help me separate the concrete syntax from the abstract syntax. Further, if the language were to evolve a little, having a separate data structure would make it possible to add typechecking or other static semantics. [I avoid name clashes using a combination of smallish modules, qualified naming and ad hoc use of prefixes and deliberate mis-spellings. The situation in Haskell isn't especially happy.] -- Alastair Reid _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
