wnoise at ofb.net
Sat Apr 8 15:04:49 EDT 2006
On 2006-04-08, Chris Kuklewicz <haskell at list.mightyreason.com> wrote:
>> Is the head of the inits of undefined really an error?
>> Since the head of inits  is also  ...
>> But if you really want that undefined to produce an error.. you could
>> just :
>> inits' xn@(_:_) = zipWith take [0..] $ map (const xn) $ undefined:xn
>> inits' _ = undefined
> Exactly. Now inits' *is* a drop in replacement for inits.
Right, but the new spiffy inits seems to be a strict superset. Does
anything plausibly depend on the strictness of the original. I think it
was written that way for clarity, not for the strictness properties.
More information about the Libraries