2008/2/6, Jeff φ
I have solved both of these problems in Clean using a lazy list without resorting to unsafe operations. So, it seems to me that uniqueness types are more general than monads.
Are you aware that your code in Clean has some issues, like the lst not being so lazy if you operate on ary2 before you operate on lst (it is completely put in memory in this case) ? You've effectively created a big uncertainty on the space taken by your function. Is this ok with you ? The monadic fold (like I and some others proposed) guarantee you a constant amount of memory consumed and is perfectly safe too, is the Clean solution really so much better ? Jonathan Cast :
I'm confused --- does uToList_2D return the head of the list before or after it finishes reading the array? If before, then I don't see how the type system prevents me from modifying the array before I finish examining the list, as you claim. If after, then the list isn't truly lazy.
What happens here is that the array can't be modified without evaluating ary2 and ary2 can't be evaluated without completely evaluating the list before, so you effectively get the list lazily as long as you don't touch ary2 before touching the list, and you can't damage the list by modifying the array (because in this case, lst would be completely evaluated in the first place). You can do the same in Haskell in fact, but you'll need to discipline yourself to evaluate the "witness" before modifying the array. So uniqueness here seems to have an advantage over monads, still, the monads look much cleaner (sic) than Clean code with all those unique value passing around... -- Jedaï