8 Apr
2006
8 Apr
'06
7:04 p.m.
On 2006-04-08, Chris Kuklewicz
Is the head of the inits of undefined really an error? Since the head of inits [] is also [] ... But if you really want that undefined to produce an error.. you could just : inits' xn@(_:_) = zipWith take [0..] $ map (const xn) $ undefined:xn inits' _ = undefined
Exactly. Now inits' *is* a drop in replacement for inits.
Right, but the new spiffy inits seems to be a strict superset. Does anything plausibly depend on the strictness of the original. I think it was written that way for clarity, not for the strictness properties. -- Aaron Denney -><-