On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:30:02PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > case t of > > (x, y, z) -> (x, y, z+1) > > How would you do: > > case t of > (x, y, z, a, b, c) -> (x+1, y, z, a, b, c+2) > > would you allow: > > case t of > (ctx @> x, _, _, _, _, ctx @> c) -> ctx (x+1) (c+2)
I thought about it, but not too much. Wolfram's idea seems nice. Best regards, Tomasz _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
