On 09/07/2012 17:32, Mikhail Vorozhtsov wrote:
On 07/09/2012 09:49 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 09/07/2012 15:04, Mikhail Vorozhtsov wrote:
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.
I think the desugaring is helpful - after all, most of the syntactic
sugar in Haskell is already specified by its desugaring. And in this
case, the desugaring helps to explain why the multi-argument version is
strange.
> 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)?
Yes, I still think it's strange. We don't separate arguments by commas
anywhere else in the syntax; arguments are always separated by whitespace.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
