Hi,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok. So I counter-propose that we deal with pattern bindings like this:
>
> The static semantics of a pattern binding are given by the following
> translation. A binding 'p = e' has the same meaning as the set of
> bindings
>
> z = e
> x1 = case z of { p -> x1 }
> ...
> xn = case z of { p -> xn }
>
> where z is fresh, and x1..xn are the variables of the pattern p.
>
> For bang patterns, I think it suffices to say that a bang at the top level
> of p is carried to the binding for z, and then separately define what banged
> variable bindings mean (i.e. add appropriate seqs).
>
> Does anyone see any problems with this?
Seems good to me.
> Oh, and I also propose to use the terminology "variable binding" instead of
> "simple pattern binding", which is currently used inconsistently in the
> report (see section 4.4.3.2).
This also makes sense. Perhaps, we should use "strict variable
binding" instead of "banged variable binding" as well?
-Iavor
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
