[Haskell-cafe] Re: Shouldn't this loop indefinitely => take (last
dons at galois.com
Fri Apr 4 17:45:36 EDT 2008
> > 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...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe