On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 04:57:14AM -0500, Cale Gibbard wrote:
Or if we're going to allow @ as an infix operator, we could use (@
pat), reminiscent of section notation. (exp @) of course would make no
sense, seeing as there's no representation for patterns as values.
oooh. I like that. what
John Meacham wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 12:28:23PM +1100, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
john:
I have often wanted a shorthand syntax for testing if a value
matches a given pattern. I want to implement such an extension for
jhc but can't decide an appropriate syntax so I thought I'd ask the
On 27/01/06, Brian Hulley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Meacham wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 12:28:23PM +1100, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
john:
I have often wanted a shorthand syntax for testing if a value
matches a given pattern. I want to implement such an extension for
jhc but
I have often wanted a shorthand syntax for testing if a value matches a
given pattern. I want to implement such an extension for jhc but can't
decide an appropriate syntax so I thought I'd ask the group. basically I
want something like
/Left (Just _)/ expands to
\x - case x of
Left
On 1/26/06, Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something like pattern guards?
f x | Just _ - x = putStrLn something
These subsume pattern guards...
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about
telescopes.
-- Edsger Dijkstra
