yPrec 0
I guess alternative 2 is worse than alternative 1, as one would
usually define prettyPrec to get pretty, and not the otherway round.
But none of these two alternatives really does the job.
--
Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch.
Department of Computer Science and Engin
me mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
--
Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch.
Theoretical Computer Science, University of Munich
Oettingenstr. 67, D-80538 Munich, GERMANY
andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de
ets.
On 10.07.2013 09:44, Dan Doel wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Andreas Abel mailto:andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de>> wrote:
Another instance (cut-down) are let-guards like
let Just x | x > 0 = e in x
The "x > 0" is understood as an assertion here, doc
On 10.07.2013 10:00, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
Andreas Abel
writes:
Proposal: add a non-recursive let to the Haskell language. In
let' p = e in e'
do { ... let' p = e ... }
the variables of pattern p are then *not* in scope in e.
Reasons for adding a non-recursive let:
1
09-February/001075.html
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8398607/declaration-order-in-let-bindings-haskell-vs-ocaml
PS.: I can work out the details of grammar and semantics if this
proposal finds followers.
Cheers,
Andreas
--
Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch.
Theo
