On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 10:53:36AM -0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > Thanks for the typo. Yes, for Haskell guys 'guard' is fine; but the > main audience for the paper is non-haskell folk, so we have to spell out > the defn. > > S
Hm, what about calling it `guard' and adding a footnote saying that in Haskell its type is actually more general? It smells a bit like namespace pollution to me right now. (Says he who hasn't even compiled 6.3 since STM got in ;) Groetjes, Remi _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
