On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Gleb Alexeyev wrote:
On 09/13/2010 12:38 PM, Thomas Davie wrote:
There's no "later" here at all.
Two seperate definitions in a Haskell program act as if they have always
been defined, are defined, and always will be defined, they are not dealt
with in sequence (except for pattern matching but that doesn't apply here).
I don't understand, I'm afraid. Michael Lazarev asked for example on the
difference between let-bound and lambda-bound values. testNotOk definition
mirrors the structure of the testOk definition, but testNotOk is, pardon my
pun, not ok, because f is let-bound and, therefore, monomorphic, while f in
the first definition is polymorphic.
I never implied that definitions are processed in some sort of sequence, nor
I stated that the two f's are somehow related.
I think the "later" refered to my words. With "later" I meant somewhere
below the binding in the do-block.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
