On 09 March 2006 22:56, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 04:53:52PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 09 March 2006 14:40, Simon Marlow wrote:
But ISTR I later discovered a reason that counting brackets wouldn't
work so well, but for now it escapes me. I'll try to dig it up.
I
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's another couple that just occurred to me:
f x | let y = x = y
f x = case x of _ | let y = x - y
granted these are unlikely to occur in practice.
Are these Haskell'98? I'm afraid I don't understand how a let binding
(without in) can occur
On 10 March 2006 11:02, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's another couple that just occurred to me:
f x | let y = x = y
f x = case x of _ | let y = x - y
granted these are unlikely to occur in practice.
Are these Haskell'98? I'm afraid I don't
Claus Reinke wrote:
- the Programatica project has a Haskell-in-Haskell implementation,
which apart from a possible candidate for such a library, prompted
many investigations into the oddities of Haskell 98, strictness
aspects of pattern matching amongst them, iirc; I
Hello Christian,
Friday, March 10, 2006, 2:32:02 PM, you wrote:
f x | not (x `Set.member` map) foo = ...
is hard to read.
btw, (x `not.Set.member` map), as proposed by Doaitse Swierstra, will
look better in this case
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:[EMAIL
