Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >   I wouldn't call this straightforward:
> > 
> > fibs = 0 : 1 : zipWith (+) fibs (tail fibs)

> OK, well how about this:

>    while (TRUE) { cont = (*cont)(); }

> I wouldn't exactly call that straightfoward either. It's not *actually* 
> complicated, but it sure *looks* pretty baffling.

  But the haskell code is normal, regular haskell. Your C example is
not code any sane person would write.

> Alternatively,

>    while(*v++ = *s++);

> I mean, what THE HELL...?

  At least it's easy to understand what it does (and why it works) when
it's explained. The haskell example isn't.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message