9 ms·
A couple of suggestions: functions like rem look better infix: x `rem` 3 this means the same thing but is more readable (I think). Instead of folding, j
by tikhonj 15y ago
A couple of suggestions: functions like rem look better infix:
x `rem` 3
this means the same thing but is more readable (I think).
Instead of folding, just map putStrLn over the list:
mapM_ (putStrLn . show') [1..100]
mapM_ is just a version of map for monads that ignores its result (it returns m () instead of m a). You can also use forM_ which is mapM_ with its arguments reversed.
Finally, I think this site lets you format code by putting four spaces in front of each line. I hope :)
Edit: One other thing. You don't need all those parentheses in the first line.
rem x 3 == 0 && rem x 5 == 0 = "FizzBuzz"
x `rem` 3 == 0 && x `rem` 5 == 0 = "FizzBuzz"
Both versions should work and I think they are easier to read. I could see (rem x 3 == 0) also being clear, but the outermost parentheses do not help at all.
- it 15y agoHere's a shorter version: fizzbuzz x | x `mod` 3 == 0 && x `mod` 5 == 0 = "FizzBuzz" | x `mod` 3 == 0 = "Fizz" | x `mod` 5 == 0 = "Buzz" | otherwise = show x main = putStr $ unlines $ map fizzbuzz [1..100]