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