On 09/20/2012 06:55 PM, bearophile wrote:
Timon Gehr:
Formalising it is not hard,
I am not sure of this, given the amount of special cases it already has.
Which special cases do you refer to?
The number of lines equals the Haskell example in this case.
Interestingly, you have opened an enhancement request on this and then
argued against it.
I am not against it, it's a nice syntax. But I think there are more
useful things to change/add, like syntax to destructure tuples, that I
need every 20 lines of code or so. When you put out many suggestions, I
think it's important to specify what you think is more important and
what's less important.
Well, => for functions is a trivial parser change, and tuple
destructuring is already implemented. (but not pulled)
There is no 'right' way.
So we don't agree even on what we have to agree :-)
I agree.
And having multiple correct ways to do something is often bad :-(
Then we're fine. These are two notations for doing it the same way.
