On 04/18/2015 01:10 PM, martin wrote:
Am 04/17/2015 um 11:18 PM schrieb Michael Orlitzky:
Why do you want to avoid recursion? You could rewrite this to use list indices if you really wanted to, but anything you come up with is going to be essentially recursive, only less safe
Thanks for the code sample and pointing out that there may not be any last dropped element.
I was wondering if there is to achive the desired behavior by plugging together higher-order functions. This was the only reason why I wanted to avoid explicit recursion.
Sure. Whenever you're processing a list and building up a return value, it's probably a (left) fold. But a fold would pointlessly process the rest of the list after it had stopped dropping elements, violating one of your criteria. And foldl is of course implemented recursively =) A "short-circuiting" version of foldl might exist in some library, but there are a few ways I can think of to implement it, so it might be hard to find.