|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Um... ouch! o_O
You learned to work around it, just like any other language limitation. You
occasionally got caught once or twice, then figured it out.
> Logically speaking, given a function and a list, you can either do any
> of the following:
Right. I was asking what code it generated given a signature.
>> Do you actually have algebraic datatypes in Haskell? Kewl.
>
> Um... yes?
> data Either x y = Left x | Right y
Oh, OK. Can you do something more complex, like say a stack?
Hmmm... Maybe essentially all user types in Haskell are ADTs, and I just
never thought of it that way before?
> (ADT - not to be confused with *abstract* data type...)
ADT used to mean "abstract data type", until OO started calling objects
that, and they had to change the terminology. :-)
> Much like the "Haskell doesn't need a debugger because programs work
> correctly first time". Until we got a debugger... and now it's "hey, we
> have a debugger!"
Oddly enough, a lot of projects created by nerds are like that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |