Donn Cave <d...@avvanta.com> writes: > I think you're not the first to ask. Just out of curiosity, or is > there a use for these variations?
Just that they seem to be natural generalizations. If it's just the single form of paramtrizing the condition, I think it's better served by a regular function, 'bool' or (??) or whatever. > The reason for the initially proposed construct seems clear enough > to me, it's very much like `case'. > getargs >>= if then beTrue else beFalse . (==) ["-t"] Isn't this equivalent, and only slightly more cumbersome? getArgs >>= case of {True -> beTrue; False -> beFalse} . (==) ["-t"] (And of course, getArgs >>= case of ["-t"] -> beTrue; _ -> beFalse is probably clearer anyway.) -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe