Hello wagnerdm, Thursday, July 5, 2012, 7:22:38 PM, you wrote:
>> After 21 months of occasional arguing the lambda-case proposal(s) is this reminded me old joke about PL/I: camel is the horse created by committee i propose to return back and summarize all the requirements we have in this area. and then try to develop global solution matching them all. my summary of requirements follows: > Now we have 3 ways to performing casing/matching: > function definition: f (Just x) (Just y) | x>0 = ... multi-line, > multi-parameter > case statement: case ... of Just x | x>0 -> ... multi-line, single-parameter, > different syntax > lambda: \(Just x) (Just y) -> ... single-line, multi-parameter, case-like > syntax > What we probably need is to have common syntax for all 3 cases. another interesting feature may be ruby-style matching defined by execution of special function `match` instead of pattern matching: switch var of 1+1 -> print "var==2" [5..10] -> print "var in [5..10]" (>20) -> print "var>20" where (var `match` (1+1)), (var `match` [5..10]), (var `match` (>20)) is tested -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
