This should not be marked as good practise. It has a very bad performance due to it being brute force.
Try running "solve $ replicate 100 [1..100]".
Warning! You will most likely run out of memory and crash the pc. Other more optimized solutions are basically solved instantly.
This should not be marked as good practise. It has a very bad performance due to it being brute force.
Try running "solve $ replicate 100 [1..100]".
Warning! You will most likely run out of memory and crash the pc. Other more optimized solutions are basically solved instantly.
Use spoiler flag next time please. Your post was visible in the homepage.
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
New to Haskell, how does this work?
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
Upgraded tests and example solution.
The test cases in Haskell are wery weak. Consider using
instead of
Simple and clean.
It's not about size. In point-free version
cycle "10"will most likely be evaluated only once (even if you don't really need it in this case)Thanks :)
Applicative/Monadic parsers are really great.
Wow, yours is so much nicer than mine. Although I haven't grokked how to use ReadP at all, so I have an excuse.
Actually, the tutorials are all rather in-depth, so seeing such nice simple code examples turns out to be the best learning method.
That's beautiful Haskell though!
Can someone please explain this? (I'm mostly curious about the last line.)