On 07/09/2012 09:49 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 09/07/2012 15:04, Mikhail Vorozhtsov wrote:
Hi Simon.
On 07/09/2012 08:23 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 07/07/2012 16:07, Strake wrote:
On 07/07/2012, Jonas Almström Duregård <jonas.dureg...@chalmers.se>
wrote:
Couldn't we use \\ for multi-case lambdas with layout?
If not, these are my preferences in order (all are single argument
versions):
1: Omission: "case of". There seems to be some support for this but it
was not included in the summary.
2: Omission with clarification: "\case of"
3: "\of" - but I think this is a little weird. It's nice to have
short keywords but not at the expense of intuition. The goal here is
to drop the variable name not the case keyword, right?
Regards,
Jonas
Well, since this is now suddenly a ranked-choice election, I shall
re-cast my vote:
I think some misunderstanding has crept in - we're not planning to count
votes or anything here. If you have new suggestions or know of reasons
for/against existing proposals then please post, otherwise there's no
need to post just to express your personal preference.
Could you express your opinion on the case "comma sugar", i.e.
case x, y of
P1, P2 -> ...
P3, P4 -> ...
as sugar for
case (# x, y #) of
(# P1, P2 #) -> ...
(# P3, P4 #) -> ...
I like this.
Good!
and respectively
\case
P1, P2 -> ...
P3, P4 -> ...
as sugar for
\x y -> case x, y of
P1, P2 -> ...
P3, P4 -> ...
That looks a bit strange to me, because I would expect
\case
P1, P2 -> ...
P3, P4 -> ...
to be a function of type (# a, b #) -> ...
Hm, maybe I put it slightly wrong. Desugaring is really only a means of
implementation here. Would you still expect tuples for \case if you
didn't see the way `case x, y of ...` was implemented (or thought that
it is a primitive construct)?
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
