On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:56:36PM +0100, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> * The new syntax is really nice as a replacement for the annoyingly
> common "x <- foo ; case x of..." idiom that I've always disliked.
I might wish for "case of" to mean "\x -> case x of":
foo >>= case of ...
Useful o
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:56:36PM +0100, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> > * The new syntax is really nice as a replacement for the annoyingly
> > common "x <- foo ; case x of..." idiom that I've always disliked.
>
> I might wish for "case of" to mean
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 02:17:42PM -0700, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:56:36PM +0100, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> > * The new syntax is really nice as a replacement for the annoyingly
> > common "x <- foo ; case x of..." idiom that I've always disliked.
>
> I might wish f
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:56:36PM +0100, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> > * The new syntax is really nice as a replacement for the annoyingly
> > common "x <- foo ; case x of..." idiom that I've always disliked.
>
> I might wish for "case of" to mean
Donn Cave schrieb:
> The ordinary lambda comes close - in ghc anyway, it supports
> pattern matching. But I can't work out the syntax for multiple
> cases, which would obviously be needed to make it practically
> useful.
>
> e.g., this seems to be OK:
> getArgs >>= \ (a:_) -> putStrLn (show
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 10:14 +0200, Sven Moritz Hallberg wrote:
> Donn Cave schrieb:
>
> > The ordinary lambda comes close - in ghc anyway, it supports
> > pattern matching. But I can't work out the syntax for multiple
> > cases, which would obviously be needed to make it practically
> > useful.
>
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Bernard Pope wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 10:14 +0200, Sven Moritz Hallberg wrote:
> > Donn Cave schrieb:
...
> > > but how do you write
> > > getArgs >>= \ [] -> putStrLn "(no arguments)"
> > > (a:_) -> putStrLn (show a)
> What about good old let?
>
>
