4 Apr
2008
4 Apr
'08
5:45 p.m.
ndmitchell:
Hi
We can however write function like this:
eqLengths [] [] = True eqLengths (x:xs) (y:ys) = eqLengths ys xs eqLengths _ _ = False
which looks just fine for me.
I have this defined function. I also have lenEq1, lenGt1, and a few other variants. It works, but it just doesn't feel elegant.
Note: In case anyone gets the wrong impression, I am not suggesting lazy naturals be the standard numeric type in Haskell, just that by not going that way we have paid a cost in terms of elegance.
I'd be happy if we had an (unbounded) Nat type in the first place... -- Don