Others have already pointed this out, but it is worth saying again:
Maybe is not the only monadic effect which makes sense during
pattern-matching. Wolfram Kahl and I have explored some of these things
as part of the Pattern Matching Calculus,
http://sqrl.mcmaster.ca/~kahl/PMC/
[If you want to
On Jul25, Claus Reinke wrote:
> although you could introduce a _convention_ by which all view functions
> are supposed to be exhaustive over their input type, the types themselves
> do not encode or check exhaustiveness. so we're talking about an informal
> promise rather than a formal guarantee.
Hi Dan,
No, of course not. All I meant to say is that sometimes you want a
total view, and that a total view should be given a type that says as
much. The latter says this better than the former. On the other hand,
there are lots of circumstances in which you want a partial view, and I
think
On Monday 23 July 2007, Rene de Visser wrote:
> >> Simon PJ and I are implementing view patterns, a way of pattern matching
> >> against abstract datatypes, in GHC. Our design is described here:
> >>
> >> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ViewPatterns
> >>
> >> If you have any comments or s
>> Simon PJ and I are implementing view patterns, a way of pattern matching
>> against abstract datatypes, in GHC. Our design is described here:
>>
>> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ViewPatterns
>>
>> If you have any comments or suggestions about this design, we'd love to
>> hear them.
