Brian Hulley wrote:
Taral wrote:
On 5/28/06, Dominic Steinitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Is this defined in some library? Thanks, Dominic.
Don't think so. I use:
\a b -> f (g a b)
I don't see how (.) . (.) translates into something so simple.
Using c for (.) to make things easier to write, I get:
(.) . (.)
=== c c c
=== \x -> (c c c x)
=== \x -> (c (c x))
=== \x -> (\y z -> c (c x) y z)
Here was one error ^^^^
so fixing it and continuing:
\x -> (c (c x))
=== \x -> (\y z -> c (c x) z y)
=== \x -> (\y z -> (c x) (z y))
=== \x -> (\y z -> (\p q -> c x q p) (z y))
=== \x -> (\y z -> (\p q -> x (q p)) (z y))
=== \x -> (\y z -> (\q -> x (q (z y))))
=== \x y z q -> x (q (z y))
But it still doesn't match f (g a b)...
Regards, Brian.
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
