Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> here, because you need ADTs to explain pattern matching, but you need 
> pattern matching to explain ADTs.

You don't need pattern matching to explain ADTs. Explain ADTs with math (and 
textual substitutions, etc), then explain how pattern matching expressions 
can help automate what to do.

Actually, Meyers did a really nice job of explaining ADTs to justify 
object-oriented ideas in his Eiffel book.

> how it all works before you get into the details of syntax and so forth.

Yes. Or intermix the two.

http://docs.eiffel.com/book/method/object-oriented-software-construction-2nd-edition

If you haven't read that, you should.

> Heh. O'Reilly just published one:

Oh. Try apress or something, then.

Haskell for Dummies.  I just don't know anyone at the other places.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling togeher,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message