Taral wrote:
On 5/28/06, Dominic Steinitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Is this defined in some library? Thanks, Dominic.
Don't think so. I use:
\a b -> f (g a b)
I don't see how (.) . (.) translates into something so simple.
Using c for (.) to make things easier to write, I get:
(.) . (.)
=== c c c
=== \x -> (c c c x)
=== \x -> (c (c x))
=== \x -> (\y z -> c (c x) y z)
=== \x -> (\y z -> (c x) (y z))
=== \x -> (\y z -> (\p q -> c x q p) (y z))
=== \x -> (\y z -> (\p q -> x (q p) (y z))
=== \x -> (\y z -> (\q -> x (q (y z))))
=== \x y z q -> x (q (y z))
Have I made an error somewhere above?
Thanks, Brian.
--
Logic empowers us and Love gives us purpose.
But societal laws, and religious dogma,
empower the dead,
to destroy us.
http://www.metamilk.com
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
