Hi Jan, On one hand, I've never really needed this. On the other hand, it looks like a nice syntaxic sugar addition, so if you implemented this I would probably give it a try.
David. 2013/4/8 Jan Stolarek <jan.stola...@p.lodz.pl> > > You can achieve something similar with the ViewPatterns language > > extension. > > > > member _ [] = False > > member x (((x ==) -> True) : _) = True > > member x (_ : xs) = member x xs > Hi Tillmann, > > there are a couple of ways to achieve this in Haskell, for example using > guards: > > member :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Bool > member _ [] = False > member y (x:_) | x == y = True > member y (_:xs) = member y xs > > The goal of my proposal is to provide a concise syntax, whereas > ViewPatterns are very verbose and > guards are slightly verbose. I want something simple and something that is > very intuitive if > you've programmed in Prolog :) > > Janek > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe