> the nearest analogue to read is object->string, but it is not a generic.
That should be string->object. It's funny how often I mix up a->b and b->a
--
Ian Price -- shift-reset.com
"Programming is like pinball. The reward for doing it well is
the opportunity to do it again" - from "The Wizardy
Nikita Karetnikov writes:
> How would you rewrite the following function in Guile?
>
> foo :: [Int] -> String -> [Int]
> foo (x:y:ys) "+" = (x + y):ys
> foo (x:y:ys) "-" = (x - y):ys
> foo xs num = read num:xs
Daniel covered most of this already, but instead you might consider
(define foo
On 9 February 2013 18:12, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> Using symbols and literals, rather than strings:
Though strings work just as well as symbols :-)
On 9 February 2013 17:57, Nikita Karetnikov wrote:
> Any Haskellers here?
>
> How would you rewrite the following function in Guile?
>
> foo :: [Int] -> String -> [Int]
> foo (x:y:ys) "+" = (x + y):ys
> foo (x:y:ys) "-" = (x - y):ys
> foo xs num = read num:xs
Indeed, match can do this. The
Any Haskellers here?
How would you rewrite the following function in Guile?
foo :: [Int] -> String -> [Int]
foo (x:y:ys) "+" = (x + y):ys
foo (x:y:ys) "-" = (x - y):ys
foo xs num = read num:xs
*Main> foo [] "42"
[42]
*Main> foo [1,2] "42"
[42,1,2]
*Main> foo [1,2] "+"
[3]
*Main> foo [1..10
