G'day all.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:08:57AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For an
> interpreter I'm writing, I found myself writing a function
> "constructVarExpr :: String -> Expr" just to make it easier.
As an alternative opinion, I don't think there's anything wrong
with this. A constru
> Variable (VVariable(varName, (Value (Number
> (NNumber (varValue, varDimension))
>
> Here VVariable and NNumber are newtype constructors of tuples, and the
> entire expression is an "Expression" which, among other things has:
>
> data Expression =
> V
Thanks for your reply...
Paul Hudak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > case expr of
> > C f -> ...
> > V (Variable (VVariable s)) -> ...
> > ...
>
> I think you mean:
>
> case expr of
> C f -> ...
> V (VVariable s) -> ...
>
> which is not quite as verbose.
Yes, I think I should h
> In Paul Hudak's SOE, I find a definition of expression:
>
> data Expr = C Float | V String | Expr :+ Expr | Expr :- Expr
> | Expr :* Expr | Expr :/ Expr
>
> Now this is compelling, but sometimes, I might want to have a function
> that takes a variable only, not just any kind of expr
Greetings Haskellers,
I'm running into a problem representing some fairly complicated types,
and I'll try to put together a simpler example to get your
suggestions.
In Paul Hudak's SOE, I find a definition of expression:
data Expr = C Float | V String | Expr :+ Expr | Expr :- Expr
|
