Yes, agree. Thanks. But still this adds a coupling that I did not need in the SML versions. And in this case, the analysis is word oriented, so the algorithm is intrinsically tied to a dictionary. ------------------------------------------- Gregory Guthrie ------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: Arlen Christian Mart Cuss [mailto:celtic@sairyx.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 10:50 PM To: Gregory Guthrie Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Haskell-Cafe Digest, Vol 93, Issue 58
An option I suppose would be to read the dictionary at the top level, and then pass it all the way down to the analysis routine that uses it, but that exposes the details of how the analysis is done, and couples the top and bottom levels of the previously modular functions.
It would seem to me that having the analysis routine do the I/O itself is more coupling than designing it to be datasource-agnostic!
I'd expect it to be much neater to thread the data through the various functions comprising the analysing functions, perhaps monadically, as a part of its design; and then to feed the data in at a single entry point. Thus the entire analysis is pure.