[Haskell-cafe] Re: Shouldnt this be lazy too?
wnoise at ofb.net
Mon Sep 24 17:54:20 EDT 2007
On 2007-09-24, Andrew Coppin <andrewcoppin at btinternet.com> wrote:
> Neil Mitchell wrote:
>> lengthNat [1..] > 10
>> Couldn't be clearer, and can be made to work perfectly. If anyone does
>> want to pick up the lazy naturals work, I can send over the code (or
>> write it yourself - its not hard!)
> Um... isn't a lazy natural just a list with no data, where the list
> length encodes a number?
That's one particularly simple representation, yes. "Lazy Unary".
One can also construct other representations that may be more efficient
in certain situations.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe