Paul Hudak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As for "x:xs", the "xs" is meant to be the plural of "x", and is
> pronounced "exs" (I guess...).
> Similarly, "n:ns" is one n followed by many more "ens". Make sense?
I think this convention is often used in the Prolog community as well,
as in "X|Xs".
Quoth Toby Hutton, nevermore:
Does anyone know why (x:xs)? Is xs meant to be a synonym for 'excess'?
I've seen it said somewhere (possibly Hudak's _Haskell School of
Expression_) that "xs" should be read as the plural of "x". Although
personally I always gravitate towards the "excess" notio
Pattern matching goes back to Burstall and Darlington's work in the 1970's.
As for "x:xs", the "xs" is meant to be the plural of "x", and is
pronounced "exs" (I guess...).
Similarly, "n:ns" is one n followed by many more "ens". Make sense?
(By the way, ":" is often pronounced "followed by".)
Hi,
This may have been asked before, sorry if so. I've wondered where the
convention of pattern matching a list to (x:xs) came from? I've read a
couple of old papers recently which let me believe it may have started back
in the '70s with Miranda and its ilk.
Does anyone know why (x:xs)? Is xs
