Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with haskell
Search options not deleted
user 92711
A functional programming language
5
votes
Accepted
How should I setup this type to be intuitive?
The key to clarity is separation
You should separate the Bomb's constant data from it's mutable state:
data Bomb
= Bomb
{ bPos :: Point
, bPower :: Float
, bState :: BombState
}
de …
- 476
8
votes
1
answer
674
views
Is this a valid design pattern for a Haskell main function?
After developing several Haskell applications I've found myself rigorously segregating impure code and failable (partial) functions from their pure & total counterparts. …
- 476