Daniel Mlot wrote:
That leads to the conclusion that following the book linearly is probably not the optimal way to do it, specially when one gets to the more advanced topics.
Yep. In particular, people are likely to read the advanced material after having learned Haskell from other tutorials and so on. We can as well embrace modularity.
(Trees, general map and fold) > Zippers > (Maps? Arrays?) > ... I also
I thought about having a study guide, which presented the dependency tree (as Apfelmus suggested) as well as trails on a particular topic, as in Data structures: Lists and tuples > More about lists > List processing > (Type declarations) > More on datatypes think it would be great having some visually rich way of presenting the relationships, like using conceptual maps (for instance, have a look at this nifty tool: http://cmap.ihmc.us/conceptmap.html ).
Indeed, the main drawback of modularity is the loss of clear navigation. Tracking prerequisites and study guides can alleviate that. Regards, Heinrich Apfelmus -- http://apfelmus.nfshost.com