my knowledge of point-free is from category theory. in what sense is Haskell
point-free handle namespace pollution?
Kind regards, Vasili
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:23 AM, Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 30 May 2008, at 12:29 AM, Galchin, Vasili wrote:
compactness in writing and
Hello,
I don't want to write kludgy Haskell code!
typedef struct blah
{
int val1;
union {
int val2;
struct {
int val3;
int val4;
}
}
}C_type;
question: in Haskell, can I embed definition of
Yes, you must write them seperately as something like
data A = A Int B
data B = B1 Int
| B2 Int Int
one of the many wonders of Haskell -- it encourages you to split up
your code into nice small chunks.
Bob
On 30 May 2008, at 08:46, Galchin, Vasili wrote:
Hello,
I don't want
On 29 May 2008, at 11:46 PM, Galchin, Vasili wrote:
Hello,
I don't want to write kludgy Haskell code!
typedef struct blah
{
int val1;
union {
int val2;
struct {
int val3;
int val4;
}
}
}
compactness in writing and also namespace pollution .. ;^)
Vasili
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 29 May 2008, at 11:46 PM, Galchin, Vasili wrote:
Hello,
I don't want to write kludgy Haskell code!
typedef struct blah
{
int val1;
On 30 May 2008, at 12:29 AM, Galchin, Vasili wrote:
compactness in writing and also namespace pollution .. ;^)
I know what the advantages of C's notation are. But getting the best
notation out of Haskell generally doesn't happen by trying to make
your code look like C.
So the general
