> No semantic objection, but GHC doesn't implement them because of
> the lack of a decent syntax.
OK, I suspected as much. I think I shall go off and try to
craft a syntax for a "logical" such extensions, so it can be shot
down in more detail!
The only snags I can think of off the top of my head are: taste
and decency; and perhaps heavy reliance on the offside rule,
which might be a bad thing if equation groups get infeasibly large.
> The beauty of flat pattern guards is
> that they have the same syntax as qualifiers in list comprehensions.
Surely this would also be true of any reasonable formulation
of nested ones?
Slainte,
Alex.
