On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 7:40 AM, wren ng thornton
Fernan Bolando wrote:
The intention is z0 is a system parameter and database, it contains a set of info needed to define a particular simulation
it looks like ( [n,m...], [m,o,p])
n is is a list info settings for the circuit analysis m is a list of statistics for the circuits that is need in sub-sequent calculation m is a list of circuit settings like temperature etc. o is a list of matrix solution for non-linear newton raphson p is a list of matrix solution for time dependent calculations
This would be better as,
data SystemParameterDatabase = SystemParameterDatabase { infoSettings :: InfoSettings , statistics :: Statistics , settings :: Settings , nlnr :: [Matrix Double] , timeDependent :: [Matrix Double] }
data InfoSettings = InfoSettings { pMSET :: MSET , aSetting :: A , bSetting :: B ... }
data Statistics = Statistics { aStatistic :: A , anotherStatistic :: A , bStatistic :: B ... }
data Settings = Settings { temperature :: Kelvin , etc :: Etc } ...
A single-constructor ADT, especially with the labeled-fields syntax, is pretty close to C structs; no need to reinvent them and give yourself headaches.
Really, the only thing you should be using lists for is a variable-length sequence of elements drawn from the same type and distinguished only by their position in the sequence. Whenever the length is fixed or the (semantic) type of elements can be distinguished from one another (or altered by pushing/popping the list), then a list is not what you want to be using because it doesn't capture the intention of the type (and therefore allows unintelligible values of the type, and inappropriate transformations on the type).
-- Live well, ~wren
This is the kind of code recommendations I was looking. thanks -- http://www.fernski.com