[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
suggestion: undo removal of guards from lambdas, especially
(but not only) if pattern guards make it into the language.
See the existing proposals
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/LambdaCase
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 12:55:48PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
As for extending lambda to allow multiple guards and/or multiple pattern
matches, I don't think we need that either. Lambda is a quiet syntax
and will be lost at the beginning of a sequence of pattern
matches/guards; it's best used
Claus Reinke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
since Pattern Guards appear to be popular with the committee,
I suggest to revisit the decision to drop guards from lambdas:
suggestion: undo removal of guards from lambdas, especially
(but not only) if pattern guards make it into the language.
See the
suggestion: undo removal of guards from lambdas, especially
(but not only) if pattern guards make it into the language.
See the existing proposals
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/LambdaCase
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/MultiWayIf
thanks. I'm a
Hello Claus,
Wednesday, October 18, 2006, 2:44:29 PM, you wrote:
(\ arms ) x
this looks great. smth like:
proc $ \[x] - x*2
\[x,y] - x*y
\[]- 0
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
since Pattern Guards appear to be popular with the committee,
I suggest to revisit the decision to drop guards from lambdas:
(a) http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/haskell-1990-2000/msg00353.html
(b) http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/haskell-1990-2000/msg00382.html
1. I disagree that this was a
