If we're voting
I think \of is all right, and multi-argument case could be handy,
which rules out using 'case of' for lambda case, because it's the
syntax for a 0-argument case:
case of
| guard1 -> ...
| guard2 -> ...
Then multi-argument lambda case could use the comma syntax
On July 7, 2012 00:08:26 Tyson Whitehead wrote:
> The very limited scope of this (i.e., it would only apply to lines that end
> with a grouping construct where the next line is indented further than that
> line) should also address Simon's concerns regarding things like
>
>f x y = x + y
>
On 07/07/2012, Jonas Almström Duregård wrote:
> Couldn't we use \\ for multi-case lambdas with layout?
>
> If not, these are my preferences in order (all are single argument
> versions):
> 1: Omission: "case of". There seems to be some support for this but it
> was not included in the summary.
> 2
Quoting Jonas Almström Duregård :
Couldn't we use \\ for multi-case lambdas with layout?
Actually, \\ is a valid (infix) function name... and the base library
includes one in Data.List. That name is copied in several other
container interfaces, as well.
~d
__
Couldn't we use \\ for multi-case lambdas with layout?
If not, these are my preferences in order (all are single argument versions):
1: Omission: "case of". There seems to be some support for this but it
was not included in the summary.
2: Omission with clarification: "\case of"
3: "\of" - but I
