On Sep 10, 2013 3:25 PM, "AlanKim Zimmerman" <alan.z...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the normal motivation for cucumber syntax is that it is a way to communicate requirements with non-technical people.
+1 > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:48 AM, John Wiegley <jo...@fpcomplete.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>> Niklas Hambüchen <m...@nh2.me> writes: >> >> > Code written in cucumber syntax is concise and easy to read >> >> concise |kənˈsīs|, adj. >> >> giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but >> comprehensive. >> >> Compare: >> >> Scenario: Defining the function foldl >> Given I want do define foldl >> Which has the type (in brackets) a to b to a (end of brackets), >> to a, to list of b, to a >> And my arguments are called f, acc, and l >> When l is empty >> Then the result better be acc >> Otherwise l is x cons xs >> Then the result should be foldl f (in brackets) f acc x >> (end of brackets) xs >> >> To: >> >> foldl :: (a -> b -> a) -> a -> [b] -> a >> foldl f z [] = z >> foldl f z (x:xs) = foldl f (f z x) xs >> >> How is that more concise or preferable? >> >> -- >> John Wiegley >> FP Complete Haskell tools, training and consulting >> http://fpcomplete.com johnw on #haskell/irc.freenode.net >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
