John Peterson wrote:
I think the point was that all syntax (like list comprehensions or
pattern matching) in Haskell is tied directly to the Prelude. So [ f
x ...] is ALWAYS using the Prelude definitions of things while "map"
could be hidden and redefined.
Yes, of course. I was implicitly ass
I think the point was that all syntax (like list comprehensions or
pattern matching) in Haskell is tied directly to the Prelude. So [ f
x ...] is ALWAYS using the Prelude definitions of things while "map"
could be hidden and redefined. The inability to change the meaning of
constructs expanded fr
