Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for! I didn't spot "elem" so far... that's why I was looking into "and" which was too complex for this case. Thanks again! emmanuel On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa < felipe.lessa@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, you could use:

null . dropWhile (`elem` "./")

=)

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Emmanuel Touzery wrote:

...

hi,

i want to know if a string contains only "." and "/" characters.

i do something like that:

null . dropWhile (\c -> c == '.' || c == '/')

now it's a shame, because if I wanted only to check for "." then I would have:

null . dropWhile (=='.')

afaik in scala you can say:

null . dropWhile (_ == '.' || _ == '/')

which is a bit more compact than the haskell...

I was thinking to use "and" but I'm not sure it would end up being readable...

Any idea? Or I am trying too hard to make it compact?

Emmanuel

_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

-- Felipe.

_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

ah, i wrote "and" but i meant "all" in my emails ;-) but yes i thought about all in combination with the null, to go over "." and "/". yes this is clearer, just too bad about the flip. On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Tilmann wrote:

you might want to use 'all' as well:

Prelude> (all $ flip elem "./") "...." True

Am 29.05.2013 21:50, schrieb Emmanuel Touzery:

null . dropWhile (`elem` "./")

...

______________________________**_________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/beginnershttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners