>From my point of view (n+k)-patterns have a very special meaning. This natural numbers should be considered as a type like this: data Nat = Zero | Succ Nat Therefore a (n+k)-pattern is an abbreviation for Succ(Succ(...Zero...)). It's obvious that "+" in "(n+k)" doesn't mean a somewhere else defined (or locally rebound) function. If we keep this in mind there shouldn't be any problem. (Tell me if I'm wrong.) Greetings, Marc Rehmsmeier.
- n+k patterns Lennart Augustsson
- Re: n+k patterns wadler
- Re: n+k patterns kff
- Re: n+k patterns Lennart Augustsson
- Re: n+k patterns smk
- Re: n+k patterns Joe Fasel
- Re: n+k patterns hudak-paul
- Re: n+k patterns wadler
- Re: n+k patterns Ken Sailor
- n+k patterns rabin
- n+k patterns marc
- n+k patterns Simon Peyton-Jones
- Re: n+k patterns Ross Paterson
- RE: n+k patterns Mark P Jones
- Re: n+k patterns Olaf Chitil
- Re: n+k patterns Lennart Augustsson
- RE: n+k patterns Simon Peyton-Jones
- RE: n+k patterns Simon Peyton-Jones
- Re: n+k patterns Lennart Augustsson
- RE: n+k patterns Simon Peyton-Jones
- RE: n+k patterns Malcolm Wallace