On Sun, 5 Feb 2006, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I don't use lists very much. They are not the right data structure
for many things.
Certainly, but lists are useful as interim data structure or for
initialising complex data structures.
So : is not as common as :: in my code. I checked a small
Hello Henning,
Monday, February 06, 2006, 4:12:44 PM, you wrote:
In my opinion all the special syntactic sugar for lists should go
away. I don't think lists are special enough to motivate it.
HT Fine, someone shares my attitude towards the list sugar. Nevertheless, do
HT you mean with 'no
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 07:02:52PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day all.
Hello!
Quoting Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Probably it was anticipated that right associative version will
be more useful. You can use it to create a chain of transformations,
similar to a chain of
On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 13:49 +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
. . .
and I want to add some transformation between g and z I have to
change one line and insert another
f x y .
g x .
h x y $
z
With right-associative $ it would be only one line-add. Probably not a
very
Hi -
In the Haskell98 report section 4.4.2 $ is specified as being right
associative. This means that f $ a0 a1 $ b0 b1 would parse as f (a0 a1 (b0
b1)) which seems rather strange to me. Surely it would be much more useful
if $ were defined as left associative so that it could be used to
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 02:52:20PM -, Brian Hulley wrote:
Hi -
In the Haskell98 report section 4.4.2 $ is specified as being right
associative. This means that f $ a0 a1 $ b0 b1 would parse as f (a0 a1 (b0
b1)) which seems rather strange to me. Surely it would be much more useful
if $
Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 02:52:20PM -, Brian Hulley wrote:
Hi -
In the Haskell98 report section 4.4.2 $ is specified as being right
associative. This means that f $ a0 a1 $ b0 b1 would parse as f (a0
a1 (b0 b1)) which seems rather strange to me. Surely it would be
much
On 2/4/06, Brian Hulley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know why this strange associativity was chosen?
I think it's very natural. Everything after the $, including other $
expressions, is applied to the stuff before the $. This saves me from
a lot of nested parentheses.
It seems to be
Taral wrote:
I think it's very natural. Everything after the $, including other $
expressions, is applied to the stuff before the $. This saves me from
a lot of nested parentheses.
To me, ($) helping me to avoid writing lots of parentheses, makes it
extremely useful. Actually: except for
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 08:37:51PM +0100, Stefan Holdermans wrote:
Taral wrote:
I think it's very natural. Everything after the $, including other $
expressions, is applied to the stuff before the $. This saves me from
a lot of nested parentheses.
To me, ($) helping me to avoid writing
G'day all.
Quoting Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Probably it was anticipated that right associative version will
be more useful. You can use it to create a chain of transformations,
similar to a chain of composed functions:
(f . g . h) x = f $ g $ h $ x
Of course, if $ were
G'day all.
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is the way that I normally express it. Partly because I find
function application FAR more natural than right-associative application,
I meant to say that I find function COMPOSITION more natural than
right-associative application. It certainly
12 matches
Mail list logo
