jyp_7 at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 15 04:11:10 EST 2004
--- Wolfgang Jeltsch <wolfgang at jeltsch.net> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 14. März 2004 18:31 schrieben Sie:
> > [...]
> > > And why does Seq.concat have the type
> > > Seq (Seq a) -> Seq a
> > > instead of
> > > [Seq a] -> Seq a
> > > which would be more consistent with the other
> > I gave it some thought, and concluded that it is
> > important for Seq to be consitent with itself than
> > other modules. This really should be solved with
> > classes, yet we chose not to introduce new classes
> > DData.
> > Moreover, Seq is an instance of Monoid, so
> > can be used.
> But why does LambdaSeq.concat have the type
> [LambdaSeq a] -> LambdaSeq a
> instead of
> LambdaSeq (LambdaSeq a) -> LambdaSeq a
I kept the old sequences (implemented as lambdas) as
LambdaSeq, but did not work on it any more, so it is
rather not up to date. I thought to remove it
eventually. Do you think it is any worth keeping?
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
More information about the Libraries