A humble suggestion: Have a *lazy* "to list" method for your *lists, arrays,
sets, etc.* and use the nice list-only version.
On 27 February 2010 18:11, Andrew Coppin
One somewhat neat thing about Haskell is that you can say
case list of [[x], [y,_], [z,_,_]] -> x + y + z _ -> 0
In Java, you'd have to write something like
if (list.length() == 3) { List t1 = list.at(0); if (t1.length() == 1) { int x = t1.at(0); List t2 = list.at(1); if (t2.length() == 2) ...
I can't even be bothered to finish typing all that lot!
However, as somebody pointed out, the Java version is polymorphic. Assuming that length() is defined for multiple types of container, the Java version works with lists, arrays, sets, etc. If you try to do this in Haskell, you end up with
case size c of 3 -> case (c ! 0, c ! 1, c ! 2) of (xs, ys, zs) | size x == 1 && size y == 2 & size z == 3 -> (xs ! 0) + (ys ! 0) + (zs ! 0) _ -> 0 _ -> 0
or similar. Which is shorter than Java, but nowhere near as nice as the original list-only version.
Now I was under the impression that "view patterns" fix this problem, but it seems they don't:
case c of (size -> 3) -> case (c ! 0, c ! 1, c ! 2) of (size -> 1, size -> 2, size -> 3) -> (c ! 0 ! 0) + (c ! 1 ! 0) + (c ! 2 ! 0)
Any suggestions?
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-- Ozgur Akgun