There are of course already lots of ways to create functions which don't involve \
I mentioned sections (like (+1) desugaring to (\x -> x + 1)) already, and of course, one can partially apply or compose and transform other functions without explicit lambdas. We're not exactly talking about function definitions, so much as expressions whose value happens to be a function. The point is just that there are already a few other places in the syntax where the omission of a value results in a function having the omitted value as its parameter. At least to me, it seems natural to extend that pattern in this case. On 12 July 2012 15:03, Daniel Trstenjak <daniel.trsten...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 01:38:56PM -0400, Cale Gibbard wrote: >> Personally I don't see why everyone appears to prefer the syntax with >> \ in it over just the obvious case section syntax which was originally >> proposed. > > I don't think that the 'case section syntax' is obvious, because I don't > see the similarity between a function definition and a partial function > application. > > Always using '\' would be a visual hint for a function definition. > > > Greetings, > Daniel _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
