Hi Alex,
Sorry for the miswording of my question. The think I am interested in
the first couple in the descending list (which would be last few in
the ascending list)
Thanks
Sunil.
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Alexander Batischev
Hi!
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 01:48:05PM +0530, Sunil S Nandihalli wrote:
Is there a more efficient way to convert a Set to a descending list? I was looking for a function similar to Set.toAscList something like Set.toDecList . I feel first converting to a ascending list and then reversing may be in-efficient given that I actually don't need all the elements only a last couple of elements..
Why don't you use something like
take N $ Set.toAscList s
then? "A last couple of elements" in descending list would be "a first couple of elements" in ascending list. That approach may even be *faster* than building descending list, because to get your elements you'll build only beginning of the list, while with descending list, you'll need to build whole list in order to get last elements.
-- Regards, Alexander Batischev
1024D/69093C81 F870 A381 B5F5 D2A1 1B35 4D63 A1A7 1C77 6909 3C81
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk5Qx6UACgkQoaccd2kJPIHfpwCfVhaOZJnfxA3wJVW6EImZX5EE 7Q4AnAu8oUiFTnek0lkBdq7HJLHREZsg =LXPG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners