Me too, but I wasn't brave enough to say so after people seemed to be taking it seriously...
On 10 September 2013 13:33, Roman Cheplyaka <r...@ro-che.info> wrote: > * John Wiegley <jo...@fpcomplete.com> [2013-09-10 04:48:36-0500] > > >>>>> Niklas Hambüchen <m...@nh2.me> writes: > > > > > Code written in cucumber syntax is concise and easy to read > > > > concise |kənˈsīs|, adj. > > > > giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but > > comprehensive. > > > > Compare: > > > > Scenario: Defining the function foldl > > Given I want do define foldl > > Which has the type (in brackets) a to b to a (end of brackets), > > to a, to list of b, to a > > And my arguments are called f, acc, and l > > When l is empty > > Then the result better be acc > > Otherwise l is x cons xs > > Then the result should be foldl f (in brackets) f acc x > > (end of brackets) xs > > > > To: > > > > foldl :: (a -> b -> a) -> a -> [b] -> a > > foldl f z [] = z > > foldl f z (x:xs) = foldl f (f z x) xs > > > > How is that more concise or preferable? > > I thought it was a joke. > > Roman > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > -- Ian Ross Tel: +43(0)6804451378 i...@skybluetrades.net www.skybluetrades.net
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
