Hi Thomas, So "show . read" and "\x -> show (read x)" are actually mean different things?
Also, I never suspected that something like this should succeed: putStrLn $ (read . show) $ "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Thanks, -John On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Thomas Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John, > > By convention, read . show is supposed to be id. > > However, in real life, this is often not the case. It all depends on > the implementor, and this is a convention that seems to be broken > pretty frequently. > > Often there is a show instance with no read or vice versa, and > sometimes even when there is both read and show they are not inverses. > > Thomas. > > main = show . read > > > > Am 7. Dezember 2008 14:11 schrieb John Ky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi, > > > > Is there a way to read Showables? > > > > main = do > > putStrLn $ show $ read > > > > Thanks > > > > -John > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
