> 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 he
> Hi all. Was there ever any sort of consensus about whether pattern
> guards ought to be "nestable", or not?
>
> And if not, was there some semantic objection to this, was the syntax
> just considered to Unspeakable to be spoken of, or is the feature
> just largely redundant? (I think you can
Hi all. Was there ever any sort of consensus about whether pattern
guards ought to be "nestable", or not?
And if not, was there some semantic objection to this, was the syntax
just considered to Unspeakable to be spoken of, or is the feature
just largely redundant? (I think you can always rewr
