It's reasonably easy to read.<br>But you could make it more readable. Type signatures, naming the first lambda...<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/25/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Andrew Coppin</b> <<a href="mailto:andrewcoppin@btinternet.com">
andrewcoppin@btinternet.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">While using Haskell, I often find myself writing convoluted
<br>constructions such as this:<br><br>show_system =<br> unlines .<br> zipWith<br> (\l ms -><br> "Eq" ++<br> show l ++<br> ": " ++<br> (concat $ intersperse " + " $ zipWith (\n x -> x ++ " x" ++ show
<br>n) [1..] (init ms)) ++<br> " = " ++<br> last ms<br> )<br> [1..] .<br> map (map (take 8 . show))<br><br>And people complain that *Perl* is bad? This function is quite obviously<br>absurd. I mean, it works, but can *you* figure out what it does without
<br>running it? The question is, can anybody think of a better way to write<br>this function? (And more generally, functions like it.)<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br><a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br></blockquote></div><br>