skaller wrote: > but only because we can take the curry arguments x and y, > and couple them into a tuple, and this is possible because > they have names. In the Haskell style, we can indeed do this > if the argument is a tuple, but not if the arguments happen > to use curry form. > > SO instead of writing > > | 1,1 => "1 1" > > you suggest > > | 1 -> 1 => "1 1" > > which can be used in the implicit match of the Haskell form: > > fun f: int -> int -> string = > | 1 -> 1 => "1 1" > | 1 -> 2 => "1 2" > | 2 -> 1 => "2 1" > | 2 -> 2 => "2 2" > ; > > as if 'int -> int' were the argument and 1->1 matches it. > > Possibly the notation should be > > | 1 => 1 => "1 1" > > but my brain is too low on caffeine at the moment >
Yes, exactly :) Does this seem worth implementing? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Felix-language mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/felix-language
