tis 2004-03-30 klockan 17.30 skrev S. Alexander Jacobson: > I would assume that this function: > > foo list@(h:t) = list > > is equivalent to > > foo list = list > where (h:t)=list > > But passing [] to the first generates an error > even though h and t are never used! Passing [] to > the second works just fine.
You can write this as > foo' list@(~(h:t)) = list foo' [] will evaluate to []. The H98 report calls it an "irrefutable pattern", IIRC. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
