G'day.
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 10:02:36AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does anybody know of a suffix tree implementation
> for Haskell? Are there algorithms for a (lazy) functional
> setting?
Yes. Take a look here:
http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/~kurtz/publications.html
Th
There was some discussion about something like this a while ago...would
this solve our problems?
--
Hal Daume III | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Arrest this man, he talks in maths." | www.isi.edu/~hdaume
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 1 Jul
Hi, quick reply :)...i've reordered some of what you've said (i hope you
don't mind!)
> However the monad is defined, sequence_ has to process the entire list
> before anything can be determined about the result. The entire result
> of (>>) depends upon both arguments, whereas you can deduce the h
Hal Daume wrote:
> > map f = foldr ((:) . f) []
>
> as I understand it, this is essentially because foldr encapsulates all
> primitive recursive functions and since map is primitive recursive, we
> can implement it in terms of a fold.
>
> one thing that is interesting to note is that if we are
Does anybody know of a suffix tree implementation
for Haskell? Are there algorithms for a (lazy) functional
setting?
My reference is Dan Gusfield: "Algorithms on Strings, Trees,
and Sequences: Computer Science and Computational Biology".
Thanks,
Markus
--
Markus Schnell
Infineon Technologies
