I think you should add the form:
(function -> pattern) @ pattern
as well. The reason you don't need general 'pattern @ pattern' with
normal patterns is that, if anything is going to match, the two
patterns must have the same outermost constructor, so you can push
the @ inside. This doesn't hold for view patterns, and you might well
want to match against several views.
Of course you can do this with 'both', but the readability is
terrible, especially if you want to match against more than two
patterns. Nested 'both' gets extremely long, or do you want to define
'allThree', 'allFour', ...
The reason I think this might be important is that you could use view
patterns for records:
(label1 -> x)@(label2 -> y)@(label3 -> z) ...
gives a reasonable syntax for a record pattern, and it would be
compatible with any form of extensible records.
Barney.
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
