Hello Ketil,
Monday, October 4, 2010, 11:30:48 AM, you wrote:
>> Prelude> (if then "Haskell" else "Cafe") False
lambda-if is easily implemented in terms of usual functions.
and we even have one named bool:
bool: Bool -> a -> a -> a
lambda-case cannot be implemented as a function since we need
m
On 4 October 2010 10:55, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello Ketil,
>
> Monday, October 4, 2010, 11:30:48 AM, you wrote:
>>> Prelude> (if then "Haskell" else "Cafe") False
>
> lambda-if is easily implemented in terms of usual functions.
> and we even have one named bool:
>
> bool: Bool -> a -> a -> a
At 12:05 PM +0200 10/4/10, Christopher Done wrote:
On 4 October 2010 10:55, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Ketil,
Monday, October 4, 2010, 11:30:48 AM, you wrote:
Prelude> (if then "Haskell" else "Cafe") False
lambda-if is easily implemented in terms of usual functions.
and we even have
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Dean Herington
wrote:
> With respect to "datatype destructing" functions, the Prelude has:
>
> maybe :: b -> (a -> b) -> Maybe a -> b
> either :: (a -> c) -> (b -> c) -> Either a b -> c
>
> which suggests the following signatures for the analogues for Bool and list
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 03:36:12 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Dean Herington
> wrote:
> > With respect to "datatype destructing" functions, the Prelude has:
> >
> > maybe :: b -> (a -> b) -> Maybe a -> b
> > either :: (a -> c) -> (b -> c) -> Either a b -> c
> >
> > which
At 3:36 AM -0600 10/5/10, Luke Palmer wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Dean Herington
wrote:
With respect to "datatype destructing" functions, the Prelude has:
maybe :: b -> (a -> b) -> Maybe a -> b
either :: (a -> c) -> (b -> c) -> Either a b -> c
which suggests the following signa
