Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6232759
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 24, 20262026-05-24T10:10:25+00:00 2026-05-24T10:10:25+00:00

When I use an imperative language I often write code like foo (x) {

  • 0

When I use an imperative language I often write code like

foo (x) {
    if (x < 0) return True;
    y = getForX(x);
    if (y < 0) return True;

    return x < y;
}

That is, I check conditions off one by one, breaking out of the block as soon
as possible.

I like this because it keeps the code “flat” and obeys the principle of “end
weight”. I consider it to be more readable.

But in Haskell I would have written that as

foo x = do
    if x < 0
        then return x
        else do
            y <- getForX x

            if y < 0
                then return True
                else return $ x < y

Which I don’t like as much. I could use a monad that allows breaking out, but
since I’m already using a monad I’d have to lift everything, which adds words
I’d like to avoid if I can.

I suppose there’s not really a perfect solution to this but does anyone have
any advice?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-24T10:10:26+00:00Added an answer on May 24, 2026 at 10:10 am

    For your specific question: How about dangling do notation and the usage of logic?

    foo x = do
      if x < 0 then return x else do
      y <- getForX x
      return $ y < 0 || x < y
    

    Edit

    Combined with what hammar said, you can even get more beautiful code:

    foo x | x < 0     = return x
          | otherwise = do y <- getForX x
                           return $ y < 0 || x < y
    
    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

No related questions found

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.