On 2006-10-26, Jon Fairbairn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006-10-25 at 20:57- Aaron Denney wrote:
>> On 2006-10-25, Jon Fairbairn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > No. A small alteration to the lexical syntax for the sake of
>> > improved readability seems perfectly justifiable as long as
>>
lambda-abstraction doesn't even exist at expression level, but is
replaced by spliced matching; application exists, but is not needed,
because (f e) = {| e |> {| f |} |} (unless I'm mistaken?)
oops, wrong brackets around f - should be:
{| e |> ^f^ |} --> {| ^f e^ |} --> f e
with f supposedly
Hello Simon,
Monday, October 30, 2006, 3:11:23 PM, you wrote:
> I always thought it was a mistake to remove record puns in H98. I would
> not be against re-introducing them into GHC, since they appear to remain
> in Hugs and are in Yhc.
what you (and all) think about wildcarded puns:
data Comm
Funny that you should mention this idea. I spent last night and this
morning implementing it in ghc. But I use '..' instead of '*'.
The punning is available both for expressions and patterns.
I am of two minds about this extension. It introduces bound
variables without mentioning the vari
name:
introduce lambda-match (explicit match failure and fall-through)
Dear All,
may I be so optimistic as to interpret the absolute lack of counter
arguments over the last week as indication that this proposal is
acceptable in general? Thanks to those few who have expressed
support so far,
