The syntax is actually used by non-technical people to write tests. Using it to write Haskell code is a joke. (Using it for business specification is not, even if for technical people this seems overkill.)
Thu 2013/9/10 Ian Ross <i...@skybluetrades.net>: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
