Re: [Haskell-cafe] are some of these "reverse" algos better than others? is there a quick and dirty way to reveal this fact?

On 9/23/07, Thomas Hartman wrote:

-- this is the usual implementation right? myreverse xs = foldl f [] xs where f accum el = el : accum

This is often written reverse = foldl (flip (:)) [] which I quite like, because you can contrast it with foldr (:) [] which of course is just a type-restricted version of id. Stuart