Patch applied. Still, In time, I suppose the somewhat ugly not (element `member` set)
sould be addressed by a mixture of generalized infix notation and the definition of such an operator: f /. g = \x y -> f (g x y) allowing element `not/.member` set Cheers, JP. On 3/11/06, Cale Gibbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't like notElem either > > > > > * quite useful for cleaning up guards: > > > > > > f x | not (x `Set.member` map) && foo = ... > > > is hard to read. > > > > You may swap quards (or the "then" and "else" branches of "if"), or > > avoid the infix notation (which is horrible in this case anyway). > > > Although I'd normally agree with negated versions of things being > somewhat redundant, the infix version here is rather important, since > one often wants the code to look the same way as the mathematics. The > symbols \in and \not\in are both usually written infix, and that's not > going to change soon. Putting the membership operation in between is > nice, because we read the guard here as "If x is a member of xs > then..." rather than "If member x xs then..." anyway. Perhaps if the > proposal to allow somewhat more general expressions as infix operators > goes through (which I'm actually ambivalent about), I'd feel different > about this case. > > If you want to reduce redundancy, let's unify the 3 separate ways to > say 'map'. :) > > - Cale > _______________________________________________ > Libraries mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries > _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list [email protected] http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
