Tim Docker wrote:
These layouts feel a bit artificial to me. I am quite partial to
python's
list syntax - a trailing comma is optional. meaning you can write
[
a,
b,
c,
]
I'm surprised this approach isn't more widespread - Are there reasons
why
haskell syntax could
On 2006-07-13 at 02:29BST Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi,
Are cool kids supposed to put the comma in front like this?
Some cool kids do, some cool kids don't. Some do both, depending on their
mood.
The advantage of a leading , is that now the comma's line up, and if
you want to add an item on
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
On 2006-07-13 at 02:29BST Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi,
Are cool kids supposed to put the comma in front like this?
Some cool kids do, some cool kids don't. Some do both, depending on their
mood.
The advantage of a leading , is that now the
On 2006-07-13 at 11:15+0200 Henning Thielemann wrote:
Optimal notation of lists, because of most easiest editing, is
a:
b:
c:
[]
That made me smile. In Ponder I had used up : for types, and
lists could be
a::
b::
c:.
but when I suggested this at a Haskell meeting, Simon PJ
complained
Jon Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a::
b::
c:.
but when I suggested this at a Haskell meeting, Simon PJ
complained that it looks like hopscotch. I've never quite
understood that complaint!
http://blogs.salon.com/0002296/myimages/hopscotch.jpg and
On 2006-07-13 at 09:35EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark T.B. Carroll) wrote:
Jon Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a::
b::
c:.
but when I suggested this at a Haskell meeting, Simon PJ
complained that it looks like hopscotch. I've never quite
understood that complaint!
On Jul 12, 2006, at 9:18 PM, Joel Reymont wrote:
Are cool kids supposed to put the comma in front like this?
, foo
, bar
, baz
Is this for historical or other reasons because Emacs formats
Haskell code well enough regardless.
Thanks, Joel
I personally like this style. It's a
On Jul 12, 2006, at 9:18 PM, Joel Reymont wrote:
Are cool kids supposed to put the comma in front like this?
, foo
, bar
, baz
Is this for historical or other reasons because Emacs formats Haskell
code well enough regardless.
Thanks, Joel
These layouts feel a bit artificial to
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 01:01:23AM +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote:
There might be issues with tuples though, for example (1,2,) would be
the (,) tuple and not the (,,) tuple, which is a bit weird.
Besides, it might be a bit more natural if (1,2,) was a shorthand for
(\x - (1,2,x))
Best regards
