Printing patterns in Haskell

Question

Write a function Int -> Char -> Char -> [String] that will create the appropriate pattern.

For example: mapM_ putStrLn (pattern 48 '.' '+')

................................................
.+..+..+..+..+..+..+..+..+..+..+..+..+..+..+..+.
+.++.++.++.++.++.++.++.++.++.++.++.++.++.++.++.+
................................................

This idea is inspired by Writing nested for loops to produce certain output (but more general).

I am pretty satisfied with my code to solve this problem:

pattern :: Int -> Char -> Char -> [String]
pattern len a b = map (take len . cycle) [[a], [a, b, a], [b, a, b], [a]]
main :: IO()
main = mapM_ putStrLn (pattern 48 '.' '+')

Answer 1

Seems fine. However, depending on the context and the rest of the program, you can relax pattern's type:

pattern :: Int -> a -> a -> [[a]]

Also, since every putStrLn is basically hPutStrLn stdout, you could first glue all lines together with unlines and then print them with a single action:

main = putStr (unlines (pattern 48 '.' '+'))

• Caridorc: I see your suggestions but fail to understand the reasoning about them... why is a general type better? Why is a single action better?
• Zeta: @Caridorc: The most important parts of the answer are its first two words: Your code is fine. There are just some stylistic choices/alternatives you can consider. However, about the single action: putStrLn is basically the same as puts in C. From a performance point of view, you try to avoid many I/O calls (I/O, not IO) although this isn't really measurable in this small program.
• Caridorc: cool performance trick :) What about the general type?
• Zeta: @Caridorc: You cannot use pattern 48 1 2 in your original program ^^. The consensus in Haskell is: if you can make a function more general (without loosing something), make it more general. For example, you could define head :: [Int] -> Maybe Int. But head :: [a] -> Maybe a is a lot more useful.
• Caridorc: Yeah, I meant it to be a text pattern, but it is always nice to know when things could be more general.