Oh, PLEASE people. Let's not have another round of bikeshedding about
this AFTER the feature is already implemented!
-Brent
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 01:25:27PM +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairba...@cl.cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > “\case” complicates lambda, using “of” simply breaks “case … of …”
> > into two easily understood parts.
>
> Just some observation (I'm rather late to the lambda-case discussion, so
> this might have been already pointed out previously):
>
> if the reserved keyword 'of' was to take the place of '\case', shouldn't
> then
>
> 'case' exp
>
> w/o the "'of' { alts }"-part become a separately valid expression (with
> 'case' essentially meaning 'flip ($)') to really break it up into two
> independent parts? Then 'case exp of { alts }' wouldn't be a special
> form anymore, but would just result from combining 'case' and 'of';
>
> 'case' wouldn't even need to be a reserved keyword (and thus the grammar
> could be simplified), if it wasn't for the current grammar which
> requires to isolate a \case-expression by using () or $, consider e.g.:
>
> {-# LANGUAGE LambdaCase #-}
>
> import System.Environment
>
> case' :: b -> (b -> c) -> c
> case' = flip ($)
>
> main = do
> s <- getArgs
>
> case' s $ \case -- image '\case' was actually '\of' or 'of'
> [x] -> putStrLn ("Hello " ++ x)
> _ -> putStrLn "wrong number of arguments given"
>
>
> just my 2¢
>
> cheers,
> hvr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
