Looks promising...

A first cut at code that takes the aforementioned approach looks promising. Merging the purely combinatoric code with the code that generates palindromes gave rise to a name clash or two, I left out a couple of needed parentheses, Haskell didn't like my referring to some type by the name of Integber, I wrote [1..3] rather than [1,3] for the list of one digit Ys with no 2s, and I forgot that if m is a power of 10, digitsIn 10 m is one more than the common log of m. That corrected, a few lines from the big input give the same result as the previous version, and the new version was noticeably faster on some of them, which is what we were after. Now to compile and try the whole megillah. There are some things I should probably memoize, but get it right first, right?

By the way, ghci (Glasgow Haskell Compiler Interpreter?!), the interpreter, has a useful, um... OK. "Spell checker" isn't quite right, but if you make a typo, it will notice that it's close to something else that is defined, and say "Maybe you meant..." So far, it has always suggested what I meant.

I am highly impressed with how little Haskell gets in the way, and how easy it is to say what I mean. Of course, I haven't seriously entered the world of do and monads, so I should make a point of pushing myself there, but I expect it won't be the bĂȘte noire it's made out to be. I promise that once I do, I will not write yet another "monads are like containers/tortillasburritos/etc." tutorial. (In that context, don't miss Daniel Spiewak's article on the subject.)


Popular posts from this blog

TMTOWTDI, Haskell Style

No tutorial, I swear...

Look and say sequence