
Nice!
Just out of curiosity...
I have no trouble accepting that the zipWith3 approach is more idiomatic,
but it doesn't appear (to my eye) significantly shorter or significantly
more obvious. So are the tradeoffs primarily cultural, or is there another
issue that I'm missing?
Thanks,
-jn-
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Chaddaï Fouché
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Joel Neely
wrote: smooth :: Fractional n => [n] -> [n] smooth (a:z@(b:c:_)) = (a + b + c) / 3 : smooth z smooth _ = []
In Haskell, I would write this with higher-order functions though :
smooth xs = zipWith3 (\a b c -> (a+b+c)/3) xs (drop 1 xs) (drop 2 xs)
-- Jedaï
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners
-- Beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity. - Plato