> To repeat, the analogues in SML and Erlang *do* support multiple > clauses (as well as pattern matching) and the failure of Haskell > lambdas to do so has always seemed like a weird restriction in a > language that's usually free of weird restrictions.
I agree with this sentiment. I have never understood why lambdas can't handle multiple clauses. > I'd prefer to see something like > \ 1 -> f > | 2 -> g > but I'm sure something could be worked out. This sounds sensible, since the lambda-case clause should really be about having a lambda with support for cases, not a case statement that's implicitly surrounded by a lambda. While I think the "case of" is a good idea, multiple clauses in lambdas seems more canonical to me. Nick _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
