StackOverflow2013

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals

PO
primarykey
Id
17648745
data
AcceptedAnswerId
0
AnswerCount
0
ClosedDate
CommentCount
0
CommunityOwnedDate
CreationDate
2013-07-15T07:22:15.893
FavoriteCount
0
LastActivityDate
2013-07-15T07:22:15.893
LastEditDate
LastEditorUserId
0
OwnerUserId
450128
ParentId
17647280
PostTypeId
2
Score
8
ViewCount
0
LastEditorDisplayName
text
Body
I'm afraid that <code>not oddOf</code> isn't a reasonable partially-applied function. It's an application of <code>not</code> to <code>oddOf</code>. <code>not</code> has type <code>Bool -> Bool</code>; it takes a single <code>Bool</code> argument and returns a <code>Bool</code>. <code>oddOf</code> isn't a <code>Bool</code>, so <code>not</code> can't be applied to it. But what you want is not to apply <code>not</code> to <code>oddOf</code> itself, but to apply <code>not</code> to the result of applying <code>oddOf</code> to two arguments. The most direct way to do what you want is to write something like this: <pre><code>evenOf value list = not $ oddOf value list </code></pre> This is theoretically a little less direct and abstract than it could be, because rather than just defining <code>evenOf</code> by its relationship to <code>oddOf</code> directly you're "manually" wiring up the inputs to <code>evenOf</code> to the inputs of <code>oddOf</code> and then post-processing its result. A point-free version, such as Ziyao Wei's suggested: <pre><code>evenOf = ((not .) .) oddOf </code></pre> more directly states that relationship, freeing the reader from having to verify that the 2 arguments to <code>evenOf</code> are simply passed to <code>oddOf</code> in the same order and not used for any other purpose. But generally it takes quite a deep familiarity with Haskell to find that version clearer (otherwise you have to instead verify what exactly the nested composition sections do to see the "directly stated" relationship). So if you're more comfortable with explicitly naming and "wiring" the arguments, that's probably the elegant way you're looking for.
Tags
Title
singulars
PostAcceptedAnswerId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostParentId
1. PODefining Functions In Relation To Other Functions Without Considering Implementation Details
 singulars
 PostTypePostTypeId
 PTQuestion
PostTypePostTypeId
1. PTAnswer
UserLastEditorUserId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
UserOwnerUserId
1. USBen
plurals
PostLinksPostIdRelatedPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostLinksRelatedPostIdPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostsAcceptedAnswerId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostsParentIdCreationDate
1. This table or related slice is empty.
VotesPostIdCreationDate
1. VO
 singulars
 PostPostId
 PO
 UserUserId
 This table or related slice is empty.
 VoteTypeVoteTypeId
 VTUpMod
2. VO
 singulars
 PostPostId
 PO
 UserUserId
 This table or related slice is empty.
 VoteTypeVoteTypeId
 VTUpMod
3. VO
 singulars
 PostPostId
 PO
 UserUserId
 This table or related slice is empty.
 VoteTypeVoteTypeId
 VTUpMod
CommentsPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.

Querying!

Guidance

A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.