[erlang-questions] Nested for-loops, there has to be a better way to do this
Wed Jul 29 21:05:42 CEST 2009
On Jul 29, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Zoltan Lajos Kis wrote:
> And what do I gain using this for function compared to simply
> writing an "ad-hoc" recursive function whenever needed ?
Nothing is gained by my bloated, yet modular function. I was just
expanding on the modular function listed before mine.
> PS: seriously, is this what the original question was getting at?
I do think it shows how to do nested for loops in a way that looks
very imperative, which is what I think the original question was
On Jul 29, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Yves S. Garret wrote:
> I was playing around with the idea of implementing a nested for-loop
> like construct (I will concede, they are evil, but at rare times,
> necessary.) In non-functional programming languages, they are trivial
> to do. However, this has proved to be one of those simple things that
> are a pain in the neck for me.
More information about the erlang-questions