Evil Bro wrote:
>
> > Counting can be done elegantly by 'filter' and 'length':
> I figured out the following code after posting:
>
> solve d = length [(y,x) | x <- [2..d], y <- [1..(x-1)], gcd x y == 1]
> main = print (solve 100)
>
> However when running it, it gave an answer of -1255316543.
> Counting can be done elegantly by 'filter' and 'length':
I figured out the following code after posting:
solve d = length [(y,x) | x <- [2..d], y <- [1..(x-1)], gcd x y == 1]
main = print (solve 100)
However when running it, it gave an answer of -1255316543. How on earth can
a length be ne
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Evil Bro wrote:
> I'm pretty new to Haskell, so forgive me if my question is due to my
> non-functional way of thinking...
>
> I have the following code:
Counting can be done elegantly by 'filter' and 'length':
length $ filter (>1) $ Monad.liftM2 gcd [2..1000] [2..1000]
___
rwiggerink:
>
> I'm pretty new to Haskell, so forgive me if my question is due to my
> non-functional way of thinking...
>
> I have the following code:
>
> module Main where
>
> main = print solution
>
> solution = solve 100
>
> solve d = countUniqueFractions d 2 1 0
>
> canBeSimplified
I'm pretty new to Haskell, so forgive me if my question is due to my
non-functional way of thinking...
I have the following code:
module Main where
main = print solution
solution = solve 100
solve d = countUniqueFractions d 2 1 0
canBeSimplified (a,b) = gcd a b > 1
countUniqueFractions
Keaan,
(§) :: b -> ([a],[b]) -> ([a],[b])
y § (xs, ys) = (xs,y:ys)
GHC gives a lexical error.
Regards,
Stefan
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Stefan Holdermans wrote:
symbol -> ascSymbol | uniSymbol
ascSymbol -> ! | # | $ | % | & | * | + | . | / | < | = | > | ? | @ |
\ | ^ | | | - | ~
uniSymbol -> any Unicode symbol or punctuation
varsym -> ( symbol {symbol | :})
So, does GHC accept more symbols than the report allows? Or woul
Keaan,
This reminds me, what symbols are valid for Haskell operators?
See Chapter 9 of the Report [1].
symbol -> ascSymbol | uniSymbol
ascSymbol -> ! | # | $ | % | & | * | + | . | / | < | = | > | ? | @ |
\ | ^ | | | - | ~
uniSymbol -> any Unicode symbol or punctuation
varsym -> ( symbol {
Georg Martius wrote:
infixr 5 &,§
^^^
Please be aware that you won't find this paragraph symbol on a uk or
us keyboard. AFAIK it is just on the german one.
This reminds me, what symbols are valid for Haskell operators? I know
that function names are:
(in regex format) [A-Za-z_'][A-Za-
Am Samstag, 15. Januar 2005 14:36 schrieben Sie:
> Well, to start, the type signatures are unnecessarily restrictive.
Yep, but since I always needed them for taking elements that satisfied either
of two predicates from a list, that was the type that first came to mind
(actually the zero'th type
> Another thing, while toying, I found out that a comparison (n <= 0)
> takes three reductions more than (n < 1) according to my hugs, so
> changing the definition of splitAt thus, we require (3*n) reductions
> less. But the number of reductions and speed are different things, as
> witnessed by th
Am Samstag, 15. Januar 2005 10:05 schrieben Sie:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:57:25 +0100, Daniel Fischer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Finally, in several contexts I needed to cons an element to one of a pair
> > of lists, so I defined
> >
> > infixr 5 &,§
>^^^
Georg,
I think these operators should be more related to ":" like ":&" "&:"
or similar. However, in my opinion this special cons operators could
be just functions with a meaningful name like "consfst" and "conssnd".
It would provide much more readability.
And (:&) would of course be illegal anyw
Hi Daniel,
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:57:25 +0100, Daniel Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Finally, in several contexts I needed to cons an element to one of a pair of
lists, so I defined
infixr 5 &,§
^^^
Please be aware that you won't find this paragraph symbol on a uk or us
keyboard.
Daniel Fischer wrote:
[snip]
Another thing, while toying, I found out that a comparison (n <= 0) takes
three reductions more than (n < 1) according to my hugs, so changing the
definition of splitAt thus, we require (3*n) reductions less.
That difference looks like it comes from the default defin
Hi folks,
toying a bit with splitAt and take, I have met yet another thing, I don't
understand.
In the Hugs Prelude, splitAt is defined
splitAt n xs | n <= 0 = ( [],xs)
splitAt _ [] = ([],[])
splitAt n (x:xs)= (x:xs',xs'') where (xs',xs'') = splitAt (n-1) xs
whereas in the
16 matches
Mail list logo
