"C.Reinke"
I'm not sure if "iterate" counts as loop forever?
I don't think there can be a "loop forever" construct in haskell? [...] loop f = f >> loop f
[...] example (get ready to hit that interrupt key;-):
loop (putStrLn "hi")
ok, got it. /me bad
I can't remember any %-based sprintf off the top of my head, but hey, who'd want one anyway?
me! I've always wondered how you internationalize a program without it? [...] you only want to factor out the strings, so that they can be collected in a single space for the translators/customizers convenience. functional abstraction allows you to just do that (then put the functions into a module per language, or collect them in tuples/records, and link or select as appropriate):
encryptionTooSimple d = "This encryption key is too simple (must be at least " ++(show (d::Integer))++ characters long)"
- i don't like separating the string from the code for simple strings - do you really suggest giving this translators? You can be sure it won't compile any more ;p ok, i agree one of the strength of gettext/po solution relies on available tools (eg: kbabel) [...]
Main> format ( s "age: " . int . s " name: " . str . nl ) 10 "IGS" "age: 10 name: IGS\n"
anyone really using this? ;p give me OCaml's Printf.sprintf!! [...]
i don't put any non-simple functions, the main aim is not to show how it can be done, but what are the various names used in various languages.
but it is one of the major features of functional languages that it is so easy to compose/reuse functionality! this is why Haskell doesn't need a name for everything - composing the functions can be as simple as (and more flexible than) composing the names.
I don't deny this. But anyway, haskell has quite a big library for very common functions (compared with OCaml for example), so it's not a big pb for haskell.