Talk:99 questions/1 to 10
Does the problem 1 example need correction?
The problem refers us to
last as a
Prelude function providing the same functionality. However,
last has type
[a] -> a which differs from the Lisp example's type
[a] -> [a]. Should we revise the example or should we rephrase the reference to
last to highlight the difference?
Chrycheng 12:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the answer to problem 6 is kind of "cheating". I think something like this would be a nice alternate solutions:
isPalindrome :: Eq (a) => [a] -> Bool isPalindrome  = True isPalindrome [x] = True isPalindrome (x:xs) = x == last xs && isPalindrome (init xs)
Michael 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)