Oh, neat. I guess it does. :) I'll hack that into my grammar when I get into work tomorrow.
My main point with that observation is it cleanly allows for multiple argument \of without breaking the intuition you get from how of already works/looks or requiring you to refactor subsequent lines, to cram parens or other odd bits of syntax in, but still lets the multi-argument crowd have a way to make multi-argument lambdas with all of the expected appropriate backtracking, if they want them. I definitely prefer \of to \case given its almost shocking brevity and the fact that the fact that it introduces a layout rule doesn't change any of the rules for when layout is introduced. On Jul 5, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Twan van Laarhoven <twa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2012-07-05 23:04, Edward Kmett wrote: >> A similar generalization can be applied to the expression between case and of >> to permit a , separated list of expressions so this becomes applicable to the >> usual case construct. A naked unparenthesized , is illegal there currently as >> well. That would effectively be constructing then matching on an unboxed >> tuple without the (#, #) noise, but that can be viewed as a separate >> proposal' then the above is just the elision of the case component of: > > Should that also generalize to nullarry 'case of'? As in > > foo = case of > | guard1 -> bar > | guard2 -> baz > > instead of > > foo = case () of > () | guard1 -> bar > | guard2 -> baz > > > > I realize this is getting off-topic, and has become orthogonal to the single > argument λcase proposal. > > > Twan > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
