Re: [Haskell-cafe] Redefining Disjunction

PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Can you think of a fourth way of redefining disjunct using pattern matching? vee :: Bool - Bool - Bool vee _ True = True vee True _ = True vee _ _ = False In the same spirit: f False False = False f _ _ = True

RE: [Haskell-cafe] Redefining Disjunction

[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of PR Stanley Hi Can you think of a fourth way of redefining disjunct using pattern matching? vee :: Bool - Bool - Bool vee _ True = True vee True _ = True vee _ _ = False How many ways do you want? I think this is correct, and is only strict in the

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Redefining Disjunction

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 02:37:37PM +0100, PR Stanley wrote: Hi Can you think of a fourth way of redefining disjunct using pattern matching? vee :: Bool - Bool - Bool vee _ True = True vee True _ = True vee _ _ = False ve :: Bool - Bool - Bool ve True True = True ve True False = True ve