On Feb 6, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
Thomas Davie wrote:
fst :: α × β → α
even without Unicode we could allow
fst :: a * b -> a
like ML. But I'm not sure I like this.
I am on the record as hating this with a burning passion,
personally. This is one of those places where mathematical notation
actually obscures rather than clarifying. Continuing the error in ML
was a mistake. Fundamentally, I *like* that the k-tuple type in
Haskell looks like a k-tuple, and not some randomly-associated infix
binary operator.
-Jan-Willem Maessen
((a,b),c) and (a,(b,c)) and (a,b,c) all feel distinct to me, but
(a*b)*c, a*(b*c) and a*b*c feel the same. I could easily get used
to it, but I doubt I'd use it as long as the old syntax remained
available.
-- Ben
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[email protected]
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[email protected]
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
