Oh, PLEASE people. Let's not have another round of bikeshedding about this AFTER the feature is already implemented!
-Brent On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 01:25:27PM +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: > Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairba...@cl.cam.ac.uk> writes: > > [...] > > > “\case” complicates lambda, using “of” simply breaks “case … of …” > > into two easily understood parts. > > Just some observation (I'm rather late to the lambda-case discussion, so > this might have been already pointed out previously): > > if the reserved keyword 'of' was to take the place of '\case', shouldn't > then > > 'case' exp > > w/o the "'of' { alts }"-part become a separately valid expression (with > 'case' essentially meaning 'flip ($)') to really break it up into two > independent parts? Then 'case exp of { alts }' wouldn't be a special > form anymore, but would just result from combining 'case' and 'of'; > > 'case' wouldn't even need to be a reserved keyword (and thus the grammar > could be simplified), if it wasn't for the current grammar which > requires to isolate a \case-expression by using () or $, consider e.g.: > > {-# LANGUAGE LambdaCase #-} > > import System.Environment > > case' :: b -> (b -> c) -> c > case' = flip ($) > > main = do > s <- getArgs > > case' s $ \case -- image '\case' was actually '\of' or 'of' > [x] -> putStrLn ("Hello " ++ x) > _ -> putStrLn "wrong number of arguments given" > > > just my 2¢ > > cheers, > hvr > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > glasgow-haskell-us...@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe